Kesi ya Mahalu: Nani kilaza hapa?
Kesi ya Mahalu: Nani kilaza hapa?
- Thread starter Mugishagwe
- Start date
namhurumia huyo dada afisa utawala Grace martin ,nilisoma nae chuo kikuu dada alikuwa anapenda mambo makubwa makubwa,wanaume wenye pesa duh!
sasa wakipatikana na hatia,sheria inasemaje wadau, je wanaweza kufungwa au kurejesha kiasi cha pesa walichochukua?
Hebu wanasheria tusaidieni
sasa wakipatikana na hatia,sheria inasemaje wadau, je wanaweza kufungwa au kurejesha kiasi cha pesa walichochukua?
Hebu wanasheria tusaidieni
Shishye
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 26, 2009
- 269
- 1
Huyu jamaa anatetwa na mwanasiasa mwanasheria Bob Makani. Hivi bado yuko kwenye siasa za upinzani au ameshahamia CCM kundi la mafisadi? Upinzani wa siasa za nchi hii unaniacha na wasiwasi mkubwa saa zote, ni njaa ama nini?
Hata kama ni njaa, mpinzani wa ufisadi na wizi huwezi kujitokeza front line kumtetea mtuhumiwa wa ajenda hiyo - ndiyo ana haki ya utetezi lakini wapo wasiofungamana na upande wowote.
Hata kama ni njaa, mpinzani wa ufisadi na wizi huwezi kujitokeza front line kumtetea mtuhumiwa wa ajenda hiyo - ndiyo ana haki ya utetezi lakini wapo wasiofungamana na upande wowote.
Mkuu,
Uwakili unakula kiapo kama udaktari tu, huwezi kukataa kumhudumia mteja kwasababu tu morally hukubaliani na alichofanya. Huwezi kumlaumu Makani, Marando au Lissu kwa kuangalia watu wanaowatetea mahakamani.
Watakuwa wanakiuka maadili ya kazi zao kama watakaa kuhudumia wateja kwasababu ni mafisadi au majambazi au wauaji.
WomanOfSubstance
JF-Expert Member
- May 30, 2008
- 5,457
- 963
Baba_Enock
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 21, 2008
- 7,076
- 2,457
HAWANA KESI YA KUJIBU (period).
Shishye
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 26, 2009
- 269
- 1
Sidhani kama wanalazimika kumtetea kila mteja ajaye bali wana right of refusal - sijui mambo ya sheria lakini (mawazo yangu). Otherwise mafisadi wote wangeenda kutaka kutetewa na Lissu na akina Mwakyembe!
BAK
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 11, 2007
- 124,790
- 288,165
Mahalu claims diplomatic immunity in latest bid for case dismissal
THISDAY REPORTER
LAWYERS representing Tanzanias former ambassador to Italy, Prof. Costa Ricky Mahalu, and the embassys ex-counsellor Ms Grace Martin, have filed a High Court submission challenging the legality of the duos ongoing embezzlement trial at the Kisutu Resident Magistrates Court in Dar es Salaam.
The lawyers argue that the lower Kisutu court lacks jurisdiction to preside over the trial on grounds that both Mahalu and Ms Martin still enjoy diplomatic immunity, and also that the alleged crime - misappropriation of more than 2bn/- earmarked for the purchase of the embassy building in Rome ? occurred outside the country.
Judge Juxton Mlay, who is hearing the application at the High Court in the city, is set to deliver a ruling on Monday next week.
He said first he intends to go through submissions presented by both the prosecution side and the defence team on the preliminary point of whether or not the court should proceed with the hearing of the application.
The case prosecutors have maintained that the countrys laws prohibit appeals on interrogatory decisions that have no effect on the rights of parties concerned in either criminal or civil matters.
Defence advocate Mabere Marando argued in his submission to the High Court that the Kisutu court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case against Mahalu, since both accused persons are being tried for offences that needed the consent of the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP).
Assisted by fellow advocates Alex Mgongolwa, Bob Makani and Cuthbert Tenga, Marando submitted that the charge sheet contains a total of six counts of which only two did not require the DPPs consent.
The defence team also asserted that the Kisutu court has no jurisdiction to try offences committed in Rome, Italy as indicated in the charge sheet, and no permission has been given by the Chief Justice to extend the courts jurisdiction confined in Dar es Salaam.
It was further argued that the two accused were diplomats enjoying diplomatic immunity that have not been waived, thus the court has no jurisdiction to try them for alleged offences related to their actions as diplomats.
The defence lawyers also took issue with the Kisutu court receiving evidence of a prosecution witness from Italy through the use of video conferencing, a procedure that they argued is not provided for in the countrys laws as spelt out in the Criminal Procedure Act and Evidence Act.
On the other hand, Principal State Attorney Boniface Stanislaus for the prosecution counter-argued that the application under which the duo wants the High Court to call for the lower courts records on the case is incompetent and should be rejected.
He said the law is very clear and both the accused and their lawyers know that no appeal or application should be entertained on any preliminary or interrogatory order or decision unless such decision has the effect of finally determining the criminal charge or suit.
According to facts of the case presented by prosecutors from the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau (PCCB) in January last year, the criminal offence was allegedly committed in September/October 2002, when both Prof. Mahalu and Ms Martin were government foreign service employees at the Tanzanian Embassy in Rome.
As ambassador and head of chancery/consul respectively, the duo was supposed to be representing government interests in Italy, Greece, Turkey, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Slovenia.
It is alleged that in the financial years 2001/2002 and 2002/2003, Prof. Mahalu requested from the foreign affairs ministry in Dar es Salaam a total of euros 3,098,741.40 for the purpose of purchasing an embassy building in Rome; an amount that was duly sent.
In October 2002, Prof. Mahalu is said to have entered into a contract with one Pagliuca Fiorella, representing Italian limited liability company Ceres SRL, to purchase an embassy building in Rome for the price of euros 1,032,913.80.
Prosecutors further allege that having entered into this contract, Prof. Mahalu also entered into another contract, for the same purpose with the same person, but with a different purchase price of euros 3,098,741.40.
This second contract, it is alleged, was false and not witnessed by any notary public.
On September 22, 2002, the accused allegedly authorised the second payment for the embassy building and instructed Unicredit Banca to transfer the money from the embassys account. The next day, euros 2, 065,827.60 was sent to Monaco while euros 1,032,913.80 was paid for the building.
PCCB prosecutors also allege that on October 1, 2002, the accused used false sale receipts to show that the vendor received the said euros 3,098,741.40 as purchase price for the building, and therefore stole the difference, causing the government to suffer the said heavy pecuniary loss.
THISDAY REPORTER
LAWYERS representing Tanzanias former ambassador to Italy, Prof. Costa Ricky Mahalu, and the embassys ex-counsellor Ms Grace Martin, have filed a High Court submission challenging the legality of the duos ongoing embezzlement trial at the Kisutu Resident Magistrates Court in Dar es Salaam.
The lawyers argue that the lower Kisutu court lacks jurisdiction to preside over the trial on grounds that both Mahalu and Ms Martin still enjoy diplomatic immunity, and also that the alleged crime - misappropriation of more than 2bn/- earmarked for the purchase of the embassy building in Rome ? occurred outside the country.
Judge Juxton Mlay, who is hearing the application at the High Court in the city, is set to deliver a ruling on Monday next week.
He said first he intends to go through submissions presented by both the prosecution side and the defence team on the preliminary point of whether or not the court should proceed with the hearing of the application.
The case prosecutors have maintained that the countrys laws prohibit appeals on interrogatory decisions that have no effect on the rights of parties concerned in either criminal or civil matters.
Defence advocate Mabere Marando argued in his submission to the High Court that the Kisutu court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case against Mahalu, since both accused persons are being tried for offences that needed the consent of the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP).
Assisted by fellow advocates Alex Mgongolwa, Bob Makani and Cuthbert Tenga, Marando submitted that the charge sheet contains a total of six counts of which only two did not require the DPPs consent.
The defence team also asserted that the Kisutu court has no jurisdiction to try offences committed in Rome, Italy as indicated in the charge sheet, and no permission has been given by the Chief Justice to extend the courts jurisdiction confined in Dar es Salaam.
It was further argued that the two accused were diplomats enjoying diplomatic immunity that have not been waived, thus the court has no jurisdiction to try them for alleged offences related to their actions as diplomats.
The defence lawyers also took issue with the Kisutu court receiving evidence of a prosecution witness from Italy through the use of video conferencing, a procedure that they argued is not provided for in the countrys laws as spelt out in the Criminal Procedure Act and Evidence Act.
On the other hand, Principal State Attorney Boniface Stanislaus for the prosecution counter-argued that the application under which the duo wants the High Court to call for the lower courts records on the case is incompetent and should be rejected.
He said the law is very clear and both the accused and their lawyers know that no appeal or application should be entertained on any preliminary or interrogatory order or decision unless such decision has the effect of finally determining the criminal charge or suit.
According to facts of the case presented by prosecutors from the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau (PCCB) in January last year, the criminal offence was allegedly committed in September/October 2002, when both Prof. Mahalu and Ms Martin were government foreign service employees at the Tanzanian Embassy in Rome.
As ambassador and head of chancery/consul respectively, the duo was supposed to be representing government interests in Italy, Greece, Turkey, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Slovenia.
It is alleged that in the financial years 2001/2002 and 2002/2003, Prof. Mahalu requested from the foreign affairs ministry in Dar es Salaam a total of euros 3,098,741.40 for the purpose of purchasing an embassy building in Rome; an amount that was duly sent.
In October 2002, Prof. Mahalu is said to have entered into a contract with one Pagliuca Fiorella, representing Italian limited liability company Ceres SRL, to purchase an embassy building in Rome for the price of euros 1,032,913.80.
Prosecutors further allege that having entered into this contract, Prof. Mahalu also entered into another contract, for the same purpose with the same person, but with a different purchase price of euros 3,098,741.40.
This second contract, it is alleged, was false and not witnessed by any notary public.
On September 22, 2002, the accused allegedly authorised the second payment for the embassy building and instructed Unicredit Banca to transfer the money from the embassys account. The next day, euros 2, 065,827.60 was sent to Monaco while euros 1,032,913.80 was paid for the building.
PCCB prosecutors also allege that on October 1, 2002, the accused used false sale receipts to show that the vendor received the said euros 3,098,741.40 as purchase price for the building, and therefore stole the difference, causing the government to suffer the said heavy pecuniary loss.
WomanOfSubstance
JF-Expert Member
- May 30, 2008
- 5,457
- 963
This is a big Joke!
Nyani Ngabu
Platinum Member
- May 15, 2006
- 94,296
- 122,540
Huyu msukuma bado hajafungwa tu? What the hell.....
Nyani Ngabu
Platinum Member
- May 15, 2006
- 94,296
- 122,540
Halafu hii diplomatic immunity ni ujinga mtupu. No one is above the law. You break it, you bear the full brunt of it. Gotdamnit...funga huyo mwizi...ebo
WomanOfSubstance
JF-Expert Member
- May 30, 2008
- 5,457
- 963
Why has it come as an afterthought?..all this time alikuwa wapi yeye na wanasheria wake?
What an insult to the legal profession and the entire population of Tanzania.Uwaibie halafu uje udae una immunity!
What an insult to the legal profession and the entire population of Tanzania.Uwaibie halafu uje udae una immunity!
Lole Gwakisa
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 5, 2008
- 4,768
- 2,361
Ebwana ee, jamaa sasa anakumbatia unyasi!Inaelekea mlango wa lupango uko wazi na una mkaribisha!!!
WomanOfSubstance
JF-Expert Member
- May 30, 2008
- 5,457
- 963
Hapo ndio watu wanachoka mpaka wanachoka, wanashangaa hadi wanashindwa kushangaa zaidi!
=====================================
Siku ya kifo cha nyani miti yote uteleza.
Education: Law Professor
Alianzia: Kufundisha University of Dar-Es-Salaam
Akaenda: Wizara ya Science na Technologia
Siku za mwizi ni 40 (Edcl India-80%commission of student allowance went to his account in German and USA, when he was serving as Director of Higher Education).
Akaishia: Tanzania Embassy: Italy
Sasa ataishi: Ukonga
Huyu jamaa kama angejua angepata pesa nyingi kuliko alizoiba kwa kufanya kazi ya Consutancy (International Law and other legal issues) hizo $2 million kwa level yake na status yake asingefanya hivyo angekuwa mbali sana.
Wasukuma waliosoma
Chenge, Harvard Educated Lawyer, Frauder
Prof. Mahalu, Law Professor, Frauder,
Ngereja, LLM (Master of Law from UDSM), Angalia anavyochemsha, kama usipochagua CCM hakuna vibari za kuchimba madini wala Umeme.
Masha, LLM (Master of Law for Georgetown University), Frauder (EPA)
Augustine Moshi
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 22, 2006
- 2,556
- 1,385
Diplomatic Immunity? Ukiiba fedha za Tanzania ukiwa nje ya Tanzania unaweza kuwa na diplomatic immunity huko nje, lakini ukisharudi Bongo hakuna immunity.
Nielewavyo diplomat hana immunity nyumbani kwake. Labda Marando adai ruhusu ya DPP ilitakiwa (kama haikutolewa).
Noana wakubwa wamejikita kwenye technicality zaidi siku hizi. Liyumba alisababisha upotevu wa fedha, sio kwamba alizipoteza yeye.
Yetu macho. Sidhani kama kuna kigogo hata mmoja atapatikana na hatia. Yanayoendelea ni danganya toto tu.
Nielewavyo diplomat hana immunity nyumbani kwake. Labda Marando adai ruhusu ya DPP ilitakiwa (kama haikutolewa).
Noana wakubwa wamejikita kwenye technicality zaidi siku hizi. Liyumba alisababisha upotevu wa fedha, sio kwamba alizipoteza yeye.
Yetu macho. Sidhani kama kuna kigogo hata mmoja atapatikana na hatia. Yanayoendelea ni danganya toto tu.
MwanaFalsafa1
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 26, 2008
- 5,565
- 843
Wengi wanao shitakiwa wakijua wana makosa na nafasi kubwa ya kupatikana na hatia wanasheria wao wana tafuta loopholes au kama ulivyo sema technicalities ili kujuokoa. Lakini usi shangae sana mtu yoyote lazima atafute njia ya kuji tetea. Si una kumbuka Ditopile Mzuzuri?
Yeye walim tafutia loopholes mpaka conviction ika shuka kutoka murder to manslaughter na akaendelea kupeta uraiani mpaka pale Mungu alipo amua kumchukua.