Kesi ya Mahalu: Nani kilaza hapa?

Yafuatayo ni hatua ambayo kesi ya Prof. Mahalu imefikia:

Source: Daily News.

Habari kwa kiswahili:
Source: HabariLEO.

SteveD.
 
Unajua nini?

Hawa jamaa Costa na grace walikula kitu kidogo si siri lakini si hayo mabilioni wayasemayo.

Jengo la ubalozi limenunuliwa lipo limejaa tele.

Mwuzaji wa jengo ambaye ni mtaliano aliomba wamlipe kwa mafungu mawili. Fungu moja lilipiwe Italy la pili lilipiwe Ufaransa ili akwepe kodi pale italy na wao wapate ulaji wa maana kidogo.

Wakafanya hivyo.

Sasa mkaguzi alipoona stakabadhi mbili na moja imelipiwa ufaransa akamtolea mimacho Mhalu na kumtajia kiwango anachotaka kuchotewa ili yaishe.

Tatizo ni kwamba kiwango alichotaja mkaguzi akina Mahalu walikuwa hawana au pengine kilizidi hata walichokula.

Mkaguzi Akmfuata Mtaliano aliyeuza jengo kumwuliza kuhusu nyumba alo uza ilikuwa bei gani Mtaliano akaonyesha Risiti ile ya Italy.
Jamaa akamrudia Costa na Grace na kuwaambia kama hamtoi kitu kidogo mmeula wa Chuya.

Sasa iko hivi hii kesi Serikali itashindwa tu kwa sababu hata mkaguzi kuna baadhi ya taratibu hakuzifuata Sasa Mahakamani inakuwa kasheshe hasa ukizingatia kwamba kivumbi cha Mafaisadi kinawatimkia kama Vumbi la Sahara na sisi Wafakiri tunataka kuona haki inatendeka.

Uliona wapi mtu anashitakiwa bila kuambiwa kosa??????

Hata Dito yuko mtaani, lakini anajua kosa lake la kubaka roho ya mtanzania mwenzetu.

Ni kweli jamaa walicheza mchezo wa kutoa malipo mara mbili Ugenini na nyumbani, lakini habari nilizo nazo mezani ni kwamba ulaji wenyewe uko chini ya 5% ya gharama ya jengo na si hayo mabilioni wayasemayo. Na ulaji huo haujaliingizia taifa hasara ya kiasi hicho kinacho daiwa.

Kwa sababu stakabadhi ya Italy wanaitambua ile ya ufaransa yenye tarakimu kubwa hawaitambui wanadai ni ya mazabe ni vipi hela yote iliyobajeti ya jengo inaingizwa kwenye wizi?
Utata upo hapo kwenye Euro 3,098,741 na Euro 2,065,827
Euro 2,065,827 ndo zilipwa Ufaransa ili kucheza mchezo wa ulaji tofauti ya tarakimu hizo mbili ndo ililipwa Italy.

Kwa nini Difference ya tarakimu hizo mbili hatuambiwi ziko wapi??????

Subirini muone watakavyo shindwa kuthibitisha mashitaka yao ya kubuni kwa kukurupuka kwao.
Costa na Grace pengine wana Kesi ya kujibu lakini si kwa mtindo huo.
 
Ndivyo dalili zinavyoonesha kutokana na mwenendo wa hii kesi, kama inavyoripotiwa na vyombo vya habari.

Lumbanga testifies in Mahalu case

2008-02-28
By Rosemary Mirondo

The first prosecution witness in the corruption case facing former Tanzanian ambassador to Italy Prof Costa Ricky Mahalu told a Dar es Salaam court yesterday he was not aware that the accused had entered two different agreements involving the purchase of a building for the Tanzanian Embassy in Rome.

Former chief secretary Martin Lumbanga told the Kisutu Resident Magistrate`s Court that he never ordered the accused to prepare two agreements on the acquisition of same building.

Lumbanga, now Tanzania`s UN Ambassador in Geneva, said he learnt of the two agreements from newspaper reports after the accused was arrested.

Prof Mahalu stands charged alongside Grace Alfred Martin, a former counsellor at the embassy, with fraudulently causing the government a loss of euro 2,065, 827.20 through the said transactions.

The following is a verbatim version of part of yesterday`s exchange in court between Lumbanga and PCCB prosecutor

Joseph Ole:
Prosecutor: You said you were Chief Secretary from 1995 to 2006, before becoming an ambassador. Could you tell the court what were your duties?

Witness: I was Chief Secretary in the President's Office, Chief Secretary to the cabinet, and Chief Secretary of the civil service.
Prosecutor: Do you know the accused?

Witness: I know Professor Mahalu.
Prosecutor: While still serving as Chief Secretary, were you aware of the Tanzanian Embassy building bought in Rome?

Witness: Yes, and Mahalu came to my office to ask me to help him get the money to buy the building. I cannot remember the date but it must have been in 2000 or 2001.

Prosecutor: What did he (Mahalu) tell you?
Witness: He said the situation in Rome was very bad because his visitors had to pass through his landlord's sitting room to get to his office. I felt that was degrading and therefore promised to look into the matter.

Prosecutor: How did you promise to help him?
Witness: I said I would use my position as Chief Secretary and as chairman of the permanent secretaries' board meetings to help him. I also said that, as chief secretary to the cabinet, I would tell them of the need to buy the building.

Prosecutor: Do you know how much was spent to buy the building?

Witness: The information I have is that it was a billion Tanzanian shillings.

Prosecutor: Are you aware that the building was bought using two agreements?

Witness: I was not aware earlier and only read about it in the newspapers after Mahalu was brought to court. But what I know is that the budget allocated for the purpose was 1bn/-.

However, Mahalu came to me a year later and told me that the funds set aside for the purchase were not enough and asked me to help him get enough money because the building they had found was selling at euro 3 million-.

But he explained that, if exempted from paying tax, they could get the building at a more reasonable price.

Prosecutor: So what did you do with that information?
Witness: I told him that Tanzania has nothing to do with the tax exemption issue.

I also advised him to discuss the matter with the Italian government, adding that it was important to ensure that he did not bargain for something in contravention of the laws of Italy.

Prosecutor: But I would once again like to know whether you ever ordered that they use two contracts in buying the building.
Witness: I never ordered that.

After the prosecution was through, the defence began cross-examining Ambassador Lumbanga. They were led by counsel Alex Mgongolwa and Cuthbert Tenga.

Mgongolwa: Who was in charge of buying the building in Rome?

Witness: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation.

Mgongolwa: Who told you about the plans to buy the Tanzanian Embassy in Rome a building?

Witness: Mahalu.
Mgongolwa: Are you aware that the Ministry (of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation) communicated with Mahalu about the building?

Witness: I am aware.
Mgongolwa: (Showing the witness a document) Do you remember this document?

Witness: No.
Mgongolwa: I thought you were the Chief Secretary in 2001?
Witness: I was.

Mgongolwa: So, how was the building bought? Did you use experts just as is usually done with respect to other embassy buildings outside the country?

Witness: Yes, the government used a quantity surveyor from the (Tanzanian) Lands ministry.

Mgongolwa: Do you remember his name?
Witness: No, I don`t.

Mgongolwa: Let me remind you his name is Kimweri. By the way, how many buildings did he inspect before giving his verdict?
Witness: I don`t know.

Mgongolwa: If I show you Kimweri's report, will it ring any bells?

Witness: No.
Mgongolwa: Why are you not telling the truth? The court can charge you with perjury and you will have a hard time looking for sureties because I know you did not come with them.

Mgongolwa: When did you know that you were coming to testify?
Witness: I received my summons on February 19, this year.
Mgongolwa: Then how come you are not prepared?

Witness: I live in Geneva and all the documents are here in Tanzania so I leave it to the court to decide which information is relevant to the case.

Mgongolwa: Do you want the court to depend on your hazy memory? Anyway (while showing him another report), do you see this three buildings?

Could you really say they could be worth a whole one billion Tanzania shillings?

Witness: No, two are worth euro 3 million and the third euro 6 million.

Mgongolwa: Which building did the quantity surveyor advise the government to buy?

(The prosecutor stands up, declaring that the defence counsel was using documents that were not tendered earlier.

However, Mgongolwa says that is all right in law because the witness did not tender any documents in court while testifying.)
Witness: then continues. He advised the government to buy the one worth euro 3 million.

Mgongolwa: (While brandishing another document) Do you remember this document?

Witness: No.
Mgongolwa: Do you remember which building was bought?
Witness: No.

Mgongolwa: Is it true that Mahalu told you that they were thinking of asking for tax exemption and, if so, how much was that expected to be and how much was he set to benefit?
Witness: He did not tell me.

Mgongolwa: Can an ambassador and a Chief Secretary communicate through the phone?

Witness: Yes.
Mgongolwa: Can an ambassador defy orders given to him orally?

Witness: I used to defy such orders, particularly if they had negative implications, unless they were written.

Mgongolwa: You said that you were not aware of the two contracts. What if somebody comes and tells the court that you were aware?

Witness: It depends; I cannot answer that unless I see that in writing.

Mgongolwa: Do you remember that sometime in 2001 Mahalu told you everything concerning the transactions?
Witness: I don't remember.

Mgongolwa then displays another document for the witness to see and asks him to read it.

Witness: The document says that the transactions are over and it is addressed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, the Ministry of Finance, the Budget Commissioner and me (as chief secretary).

Mgongolwa: So did you get a copy.
Witness: No.

Mgongolwa: Now, if you don't remember a thing about it, what have you come to do in court?

Witness: I have said what I know.
Mgongolwa: (showing another document), Do you remember this document, which was sent to you through DHL?
Witness: No.

Mgongolwa: The court will charge you with perjury if you are not careful.

Anyway, this document shows that on November 14, 2003 Mahalu sent you a copy showing that there were two contracts - one showing the real buying price and the other showing the official buying price.

Do you also remember that it was said in Parliament (in Tanzania) and recorded in the Hansard said that all procedures were followed when buying the building, which was bought at euro 3 million?

After going through the relevant section of the Hansard, the witness agrees that the building was bought at euro 3 million.

Mgongolwa: Don`t you think that, after all is said and done, the accused are innocent?

Witness: It is not up to me to decide.
The prosecution then re-examines the witness.

Prosecutor: Is it mandatory for you to go through all documents sent to your office?

Witness: No.
Prosecutor: Are the documents tendered in court by the defence original?

Witness: No, and anybody could have written them.

The case was adjourned to March 12 this year.

SOURCE: Guardian
 
Duh! kama vile namuona mzee Lumbanga jasho lilivyokuwa linamtoka, na makamasi kwa mbali... "The court will charge you with perjury if you are not careful..." Hapa naona jinsi kesi inavyoelekeaa.

Inawezekana Hon. Minister and permanent secretary wakahusishwa, angalau kama mashahidi. Ikifikia huko mhmmmmm.
 
Mwizi Mahalu alikuwa na dola laki mbili za wizi Missouri akaja kuzichukua then akaenda kununua suit pair 200...mpuzi sana huyu na kaiba kweli kweli ila basi hatuna interest maana wote ni mafisadi tuu, ila kama tukitaka tunaweza kwenda bank tukaomba transaction na sisi tukawa mashahidi na sijui atasema nini na hizo 200000 alitoa wapi?
 

Koba,
With all respect naona comment yako imejaa hasira binafsi na haina mchango wowote kulingana na thread iliyopo.

Labda nikushauri tu, anza kwenda Brella kuomba majina ya wakurugenze wa kampuni ya Kagoda kwani hiyo itakuwa kazi rahisi kuliko hiyo unayotaka kujipa.
 

Nafikiri swali zuri zaidi lingekuwa kubana tupate details zaidi na authentication ya madai.
 
Bongo wanasheria wetu wengine aiibu, huyo defence counsel anaonekana kama ana force na kutumia tactics za vitisho.Anauliza mtu kama anakumbuka kitu, mtu hakikumbuki halafu anamforce with "let me remind you" not even "refresh your memory" but "rem ind" kama vile mlikuwa pamoja ukajua anajua na sasa kasahau tu kwa hiyo unamkumbusha, what if alikuwa hajui kabisa utakuwa unam remind vipi? Au ndiyo kusema hata katika hii verbatim excchange nayo kutafsiri Kiswahili kwenda Kiingereza inaweza kuwa issue?

Angalau wanaanza kufanya some court reporting yenye verbatim exchanges, maana kuna matatizo sana katika interpretation na reporting.

Inanikumbusha enzi za "Kesi ya Uhaini" nilikuwa sikosi Mfanyakazi kila Jumamosi asubuhi saaana kwenda kuona vitu vya James Nhende na kina Wakili Muccadam Lakha (muhindi ana guts kichizi yule) mambo ya akina Hatibu "Hatty McGhee" Gandhi, Banyikwa,Christopher Ngaiza na yule mjeshi aliyetoroka kwenye gari pale Kinondoni Mkwajuni na kuanza kutupa chupa za gari la soda kama kwenye movie (I forgot his name)

Nasikia ile kesi ilitengenezewa kitabu kilichokuwa na court exchanges muhimu zote, ningependa sana kukipata kitabu hicho.
 

...mafuchilla umeishiwa hapo na mahalu ni mwizi tunamjua saaaana,kama umekuja kumtetea Mahalu humu nakushauri bora ungeenda mahakamani ,humu utaaibika tuu na huyo ndugu yako fisadi aliyeleta ukoo wake mzima States kuanzia div zero mpaka housegirl na kibaya zaidi karibu wote hawakumaliza shule na our tax money ikapotea bure.

Hivi unafikiri hii dunia kuna siri,nenda Jeff city maana yaliyotokea ni aibu tuu.
 
Mafuchila said:
Pundit,
sidhani kama shopping ya suti za Mahalu, inaweza kutusaidia.
Click to expand...


Shopping ya suti 200 za Mahalu inaweza kutuambia alikuwa anatumia kiasi gani na kutokana na mapato yake yanayojulikana inaweza kusaidia kupata ushahidi wa yeye kushiriki katika ufisadi.

Niambie kuna ubaya gani ku pursue this line of logic.Hata huku nchi zilizoendelea kama mtu unashukiwa kupata hela isivyo halali halafu unaishi a lavish lifestyle ambayo sources zako za income haionyeshi kuiweza unafuatwa na kuulizwa, itakuwa kwetu ambako mtu kama Mahalu amegubikwa katika lindi la ubadhirifu na ufisadi?

Ndiyo maana mimi swali langu siyo kama manunuzi haya yana umuhimu katika case, najua yana umuhimu, swali langu ni kwamba madai haya yana ukweli na watu wanaweza kutoa ushahidi?

JF inasomwa na watu wanaoifuatilia hii kesi karibu sana serikalini na tuna influence kuliko tunavyofikiri kwa hiyo kutoa ushahidi hata kama ni jina la hiyo sehemu na tarehe vitasaidia kwani huku watu kama wako serious wanaweza kuongea na serikali ya Marekani kwamba hili ni suala la ufisadi serikali ya marekani inawabana wenye duka wanatoa habari za manunuzi na Mahalu anaonyeshwa na kuomba kutoa source ya income inayomuwezesha kuishi such a lavish lifestyle ya kununua suti 200 kwa mpigo.

Ni mfano mdogo tu wa kesi kubwa inavyoweza kusaidiwa na details ndogo tu.
 
Pundit
Kwa hili nakubalina nawe kwa asilimia 100. Lakini Koba alitakiwa kueleza kwa mantiki uliyoitoa hapo juu, na sio kuanza "huyu jamaa mpuuzi kabisa..." Ukishaanza hoja yako kwa stahili hiyo, mara nyingi inaonekana una hasira binafsi na muhusika kuliko mada inayoongelewa.
 
Nikisoma katikati ya mstari inaonyesha Lumbanga anajua zaidi ya yale aliyokiri mahakamani. Tusubiri tuone mwelekeo wa kesi.
 
Jasusi said:
Nikisoma katikati ya mstari inaonyesha Lumbanga anajua zaidi ya yale aliyokiri mahakamani. Tusubiri tuone mwelekeo wa kesi.
Click to expand...


Hawa wanacheza Chesi wacha tuwape muda kitajulikana kilichomo ndani .Ya Mwakyembe na Lowasa sasa yanakuja wazi na hili litakuwa wazi lazima .
 
Mhe.Pundit heshima mbele,just a legal highlight, mwanasheria haforce hapo.Hiyo ipo na inakubalika inaitwa "THE ART OF CROSS EXAMINATION" na kumtisha mtu au kumkazia macho au kumbabaisha kuna lengo la kutest kama kile anachosema anakiamini au ametumwa,wenyewe wanaita to test veracity.

Ni sawa na mtu ukitaka kujua anasema ukweli ama uongo unamkazia macho huku ukiwa serious. Mwisho mahakama itaassess majibu ya shahidi yote na ya upande wa utetezi na mashtaka na kuangalia sheria inasemaje halafu utafuata uamuzi.

Hali hiyo niliyoitaja hapo juu inalindwa na sheria ya ushahidi ya mwaka 1964 ambapo hata maswali ya maudhi yanakubalika,ni suala tu la upande wa pili kumlinda shahidi wao
 
Mwelekeo wa kesi hii huenda Rais naye akaitwa kutoa ushahidi manaake zile hansard zinamgusa si ndiye alikuwa foreign minister wakati huo?mmmh japo hatakuwacross examined nadhani anaweza akaambiwa autoe kwa njia ya maandishi.ngoja tusubiri,hii itakuwa ni mara ya kwanza katika historia ya tanzania kama si afrika nadhani
 
Lumbanga na Mahalu si homeboyz? Inawezekana mawasilianoyalikua yanafanyika kishkaji zaidi ya kikazi? Then Lumbanga akawa anajua mengi lakini akaamua kukaa kimya? Are they conspiring?
 
Mi mtizamo wangu kwenye hii kesi hasa kwenye hayo mahojiano nikuwa:-

1. Lumbanga anajua mengi kuliko anayosema hapo mahakamani na excuse yake kubwa ni kwamba summons alipewa 19th Feb, mahakamani alitakiwa 28 Feb. Je yeye hakujua tokea mentioning miezi kadha wa kadha ya hii kesi kuwa alikuwa material witness, kujifanya kusahau critical issue na documents kwa material witness kama Lumbanga kunapelekea hii kesi kuwa rahisi mno kwa Mahalu.Infact Procecution wameshaiblow up hii kesi maana hawa kumprepare shahidi huyo hata kidogo kwa cross examination.

Kwani Balozi Mahalu hakuwa anaripoti Wizara ya Mambo ya Nje? Maana matatizo ya Ubalozi ya Italia, kwanini ampelekee Lumbanga? na si Katibu Mkuu wake au Waziri ambaye anaingia kwenye Cabinet?Au ndo u home boy?

Ule ushahidi wa Hansard ndo unaiblow kabisa hii kesi, kwa kuwa serikali iliconfirm bungeni kuwa transaction ilikuwa safi kama Richmonduli opps sorry kama Twin Tower.
 

Mbangaizaji,

Inawezekana kabisa serikali haikuwa na facts zote na ndio maana wakasema hilo deal lilikuwa safi. Baadaye wakaja gundua jamaa katumia forgery receipts na hapo ndipo zoezi likageuka.

Prof. Mahalu ana mapesa aliyoiba na anaweza hata kushinda hii case. Ukiwa na defence lawyers wa maana popote pale unaweza kupona hasa unaposhindani na lawyers njaa wa PCCB.
 
Nimekupata Mtanzania,

Unajua tatizo la nchi hii vile vile ni kuwa na very weak prosecutors, wakali wa hii fani hawataki kufanya kazi serikalini na wanaona bora waingie kwenye private practise. Sasa unapokuwa na weak prosecution team kwenye kesi kama hii kushindwa ni lazima.

Mi nawafahamu sana Alex Mgongolwa na Cuthbert Tenga, wako fiti tena kama kesi ndo ina bingo kama hii na burden of proof iko kwa Prosecution. Hii ngoma serikali ishaelekea kushindwa, wameanza na very poor approach kwa kumleta material witness unprepared. Defence team wataivunjilia mbali credibility yake(Lumbanga)na kama unavyoona wameshaanza kumthreat na perjury.

Inaumiza sana roho kwa kesi kama hii, unaona kabisa mtu kakwiba lakini kwa sababu tuna team mbovu ya prosecution ambayo haijafanya reseach ya uhakika na kushindwa kuprepare witness on cross examination. Kulikuwa na ulazima gani wa Lumbanga kuwa first witness?.

Anyway ngoja tuangalie lakini ni mtizamo wangu kuwa kesi hii imeisha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…