Duh! hii inaonesha CCM wamepatwa na hofu kuu, sasa amerejea kujibu tuhuma kwani mjadali huu wa kukiuka sheria ya gharama za uchaguzi nimeona topic hii hapa chini kwenye facebook watu wakijadili lakini aliye post alikuwa anamtetea JK kama ifuatavyo:
Opinions as to why Presidents Jakaya Kikwete shouldn't be accused of breaking the Election Expenses Act
.by TANZANIA on Sunday, 29 August 2010 at 23:06.
Opinions as to why Presidents Jakaya Kikwete shouldn't be accused of breaking the Election Expenses Act by announcing the status of the decision of the Government to increase the salaries of its workers. These are just someone's opinions; it shouldn't be taken as the ultimate.
PART V PROHIBITED PRACTICESUnfair conducts
Sheria yenyewe
21.-(1) during the nomination process, election campaign or election, an act of prohibited practice shall be committed by-(a)every person who, before or during the campaigns period, directly or indirectly, by any other person on his behalf gives ,lends or agrees to give or to lend, or offers, promises, or promises to procure or to endeavor to procure, any money or valuable consideration to or for any voter or to or for any person on behalf of any voter or to or to refrain from voting, or corruptly does any such act, on account of such voter having voted or refrained from voting at any nomination process or election;The section of the law is overt:
ARGUMENT YA MTOA MADA
• Every person, voter-The government is neither a person nor a voter.• During nomination, election campaigns-In any way The Government doesn't seek for nomination, that act is exercised by party members in their parties.• In order to induce any voter to vote or to refrain from voting- The Government has a constitutional responsibility to pay salaries to its employees/workers and increase/decrease them whenever possible/affordable (by so doing The Government doesn't seek to induce any voter to vote or refrain from voting because it is their rights, neither any worker has no right to claim for salary increment in order to vote or refrain from voting; (as according to the Trade Union law).• Or corruptly does any such act- By paying/giving/increasing salaries to its workers/employees, The Government exercises its constitutional responsibility hence it can never be considered as a corrupt act.• Any money or valuable consideration- HE. Jakaya Kikwete as a Presidential candidate has not been accused to being caught giving money to any person inducing him/her to vote for him or for his party, rather (and mostly as the Head of Government; it is very difficult to distinguish the two titles in campaign elections)has been explaining the matters raised by the people to his Government, normally the matters which affects their daily lives including the issues of low/inadequate salaries, building of hospitals, construction of roads, bridges etc, which he has been explaining and announcing the statuses of each. This is his obligation as the Head of Government.• By this law/this section of the act, basing on the actuality that the Government is not a person or voter, then The Government has not been prohibited to discuss/agree/disagree/sign/announce/explain any matters or even praise itself for its act of doing something beneficial to citizens/country (including increment of salaries to its workers), rather The Government is obliged to continue to practice its day to day constitutional responsibilities regardless it is doing so in election year/period or not.• Addition: The President as Head of Government has moral and constitutional obligation to explain to the citizens the acts of the Government including provision of answers to their questions/claims all the time during the period of his/her presidency. In any phrase of this section the law doesn't prohibit or set the time limit for the Head of Government to do so
Na mimi nilijibu kwa hoja zifuatazo:
the question here is did BUNGE approved any salary increment before being disolved? the answer is no, then where did the government get an authority to increase the salary without BUNGE approval? however President JK admitted the gov......ernment was unable to increase the salary in the near future and in his speech admitted he rather loose workers vote rather than increasing their salary, despite several presure from TUCTA he was reluctunt to increase the salary, but the President was under intense presure from CHADEMA when Dr. Slaa appealed to workers that he need their vote if JK does not need them, thus the government wanted to reconcile and correct their mistake by increasing the salary silently so as to cool workers and an attempt on pandering to their vote,
but the procedure were not properly followed as i have explained earier because Bunge had been dissolved already and the past bunge budget did not approve or discuss any salary increament as presented by minister for finance Mustafa Mkulo, so what CHADEMA is objecting why should the government do it now? and The president use it in his campaign? while he refused to do the same thing before campaign?
...........................................................................
It is obvious the government has not only violated and breached election expenses act of 2010 but also did not follow proper procedure because they were in hurry to get a talking point on workers welfare which the government failed to handle the matter professionally when they were supposed to do so.......................
The act of the government under such circumstance shows their intensions to buy workers vote after so much pressure from TUCTA and wananchi. However CHADEMA is demanding to know whether the fund used to increase workers salary during campaign was JK personal fund or from public fund? and if from public fund, there is some procedures stipulated by our constitution to increase workers salary?................
Moreover, if there is no clear dermacation in the constitution when the sitting president assumes his presidential role and when may act as mare CCM Candidate for presidency, dont you see that JK has a comparative advantage to use his presidential power for his own or his party benefit? and the election expenses act of 2010 will never apply to the sitting presidence?...................................................
If the sitting president has a comparative advantage to use his role as the head of government in a political compaign do you think the whole election process will be democratic, free and fair