LEAK: Document ya hukumu ya Godbless Lema HAPA

"Leak" ndio nini, hukumu ya kesi kwenye mahakama ya wazi sio siri!
 

Hapa kumbe Judge alimaanisha Section 111 (i) badala ya III (i)! Nafikiri ni typing error, nisimhukumu sana!!
 
Msio wataalamu wa sheria bora mlike tu na kukaa kimya kama mimi,sitochangia hapa zaidi ya kusoma tu! tunaweza kufanya hivi wenzangu na mimi?
 
MTAZAMO said:
Msio wataalamu wa sheria bora mlike tu na kukaa kimya kama mimi,sitochangia hapa zaidi ya kusoma tu! tunaweza kufanya hivi wenzangu na mimi?
Click to expand...

Haaa haaa! Hii kitu kumbe kweli ngoja tuipeleke Jukwaa la Sheria!!
 
Mimi mwanzo nilidhani huyu jaji angekuwa mwokozi wa aibu ya wanasheria wanaopindisha sheria, kumbe alikuwa na solution
Hivi bado yuko tz au mapumzikoni nje ya nchi?
 
Buchanan said:
Hii naona haijawa Revised, iko kama ilivyosainiwa na J. K. Nyerere tarehe 3 Aprili, 1985!!
Click to expand...

Mkuu ndio maana inanipa shida kidogo maana kuna sehemu nyingine judge ana refer to "Section III (1) of The National Elections Act, Cap. 343". Sijui kama ni typing error or the way the latest revised edition provides. Wakati wa hearing kuna reference zilikuwa zinafanywa kwenye Maadili ya Uchaguzi ya Mwaka 2010 (http://www.tz.undp.org/ESP/docs/Legal_Documents/2010_NEC_Maadili_ya_uchaguzi.PDF). Haya Maadili yamekuwa referred kwenye hukumu? Nimeisoma juu juu tuu, nahitaji muda niisome in detail but I need all the laws on my side. Una soft copy ya latest revised edition ya Tanzania Election Act 1985?
 
Nimetafuta thread yenye hukumu ya kesi ya Lema bila mafanikio; nilikuwa nimehidi kuja kuijadili kidogo kidogo kadri muda utakavyorusu. Sasa nimeitafuta bila kuipata, inawezekana imeshasahaulika hapa na hivyo iko mbali sana.

Hata hivyo ninapenda nichangie kidogo kuhusu ushahidi mkubwa uliotumiwa katika kutoa hukumu ile, yaani ushahidi uliotolewa na kapteni mstaafu wa jeshi ambaye jaji alisema kuwa ni credible witness kwa vile hajawahi kuwa mwachama wa chama chochote na wala hakukuwa na sababu yoyote kwake kuwa trained kuhusu ushahidi huo.

Kuna doa kubwa sana katika statement hiyo ya Jaji kwa vile siyo kweli kuwa shahidi huyo hajawahi kuwa mwanachama wa chama chochote. Hadi mwanzoni mwa mwaka 1993 tu ndipo wanajeshi walipoamriwa kuacha kujihusisha na siasa. Sasa iwapo yeye alikuwa kapteni wa jeshi na kustaafu mwaka 1985, ni dhahiri kuwa alikuwa mwanaCCM mpaka wakati huo; je aliithibitishiaje mahakama kuwa yeye siyo mwanachama wa CCM tena?

Hukumu ile haijaonyesha kama shahidi huyu aliacha lini kuwa mwanachama wa CCM bali inadai tu kuwa hajawahi kuwa mwanachama wa chama chochote. Kwa hiyo iwapo alikuwa bado ni mwana CCM hata kama siyo active member, hawezi kuwa shahidi credible wa kuweza kufanya hukumu ya kesi kubwa kama ile itegemee ushahidi wake tu; inawezekana alikuwa akitoa ushahidi kwa ajili ya kunufaisha chama chake.
 
Nimeipita hiyo hukumu, no evidence proved beyond doubt ili kuweza kuiingiza serikali katika hasara ya kurudia uchaguzi ambao fika CCM itashindwa. Common sense hakuna.
 
Maane said:
Nimeipita hiyo hukumu, no evidence proved beyond doubt ili kuweza kuiingiza serikali katika hasara ya kurudia uchaguzi ambao fika CCM itashindwa. Common sense hakuna.
Click to expand...

Sijajua kwa nini mnapenda hayo maneno "beyond doubt" au "beyond reasonable doubt" huku mkijua kuwa hii sio Criminal Case!
 
My dearest community of Jamiiforum, I might be wrong but I would like to be very clear in this judgment of our learned honourable Judge Rwakibarila. I would like to pose the following questions so as I can be answered by any one who is aware of. These are:-

(1) Whether the judge was rightly to establish locus standi of the petitioners under section 3 (1)of the law cited by him (National Election Act [cap. 343 R.E. 2002]) OR the one who posted has made some amendments in the judgment. Because the provision cited by the judge to establish such locus standi of the petitioners is deadly wrong BUT THE APPLICABLE PROVISION IS SECTION 133(1) (a-d) of the said law (supra). Having said so, if proved that the provision cited by the judge is deadly wrong, the petitioners had no locus standi thus, the court for such instance was barred to proceed with the case the result was only to struck out the petition.

(2) Whether the judge was also rightly to cite the following provision, I quote "Under Section 108(1)(a) of The National Elections Act (supra) it is provided, inter alia, that the election of a candidate as a Member of Parliament shall be declared void if any of the following grounds is proved to the satisfaction of the High Court and on no other ground, namely –
“That, during the election campaign, statements were made by the candidate, or on his behalf and with his knowledge and consent or approval with intent to exploit tribal, racial or religious issues or differences pertinent to the election or relating to any of the candidates, or, where the candidates are not of the same sex, with intent to exploit such difference.” My findings have revealed that, in reference to the law he cited and the provision too, the judge is totally misdirected himself because there is no such words in the provision he cited rather such words are provided under SECTION 129 (2) (a) OF THE CITED LAW.

(3) Lastly, whether the learned judge was again rightly to cite the following provision of the cited law, I quote, "The Hon. District Registrar for Arusha High Court Zone should immediately facilitate communication with the Director of Elections about this court’s decision in compliance with Section 114(1)–(7) of The National Elections Act (supra)." More so, my findings reveal that, such provision has no such words but such words may be found under SECTION 128 (a-c) OF THE CITED LAW. Tafadhali! naombeni majibu nijiridhishe kama nimekosea au niko sahihi. Jally Mongo (Jally Wa Salome Jr.).
 
My dearest community of Jamiiforum! I am very interested to know from you on why Tanzania adopted the system of avoidance of presidential election petitions in its constitution since the general election of 1965? Does it infringe the right of free access access to justice? Does it amount to the interference of judicial independence saying that the NEC's declaration that the presidential candidate duly elected can not be challenged by any court of law? What is your opinion?
 
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…