Pre GE2025 Luhaga Mpina amshtaki Spika Tulia na Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali kwa kuondolewa Bungeni kinyume na Sheria

ngalelefijo said:

Ameshitakiwa tulia(betina)

Kwamba wewe una akili kuliko mawakili 100???

Click to expand...

Hata mimi nimemuongelea Tulia, sijamuongelea mwingine. Kwani kuna Spika mwingine wa Bunge la Tanzania.

Wanasheria wanachukua kesi kwa sababu nyingi, wengine wanataka ku force judicial review, wengine wanataka hela tu, wengine wanataka majina yao yaliyosahaulika yakumbukwe.

Kwa hiyo hata wangekuwa wanasehria 1,000 hilo halina maana sana. Hapo utakuwa umechanganya logical fallacy ya appeal to popularity na argument from authority. Kwamba wanasheria wengi wakiunga mkono jambo, lazima liwe la kweli, na kwamba mwanasheria akisema kitu kuhusu sheria, lazima kiwe kweli. Both are logical fallacies.

Pia, mashitaka ni zaidi ya kumshitaki Spika, anashitakiwa Bashe, anashitakiwa Attorney General, inawezekana wakafanikiwa kwa hao, huko sina shida, ila kwa Spika wakashindwa.

Huelewi wapi?

Unaelewa kuna sheria ya kumkinga Spika dhidi ya kushitakiwa mahakamani?

Panzi Mbishi said:

Serikali iliwahi kumfukuza kazi spika, au hufahamu hili? Au unakubaliana kuna mhimili mmoja umejichimbia zaidi?

Click to expand...

Hakuna siku ambayo serikali iliwahi kumfukuza kazi Spika Tanzania.

Spika mwenyewe alijiuzulu kwa kuangalia matatizo ya kisiasa.

Unachanganya madawa. Mambo ya realpolitik vyamani na mifumo rasmi ya nchi, vitu viwili tofauti.

Weka hapa barua inayosema serikaki inemfukuza kazi Spika tuone.

Serikali haina nguvu ya kumfukuza kazi speaker usiandike kama ngumbaru.

Unaharibu kiwango cha mjadala.

Kiranga said:

Mahakama inaweza kutoa hukumu kuhusu uendeshwaji wa mhimili unaojitegemea wa Bunge na Spika?

Hukumu hiyo haitaharibu uhuru wa Bunge kama mhimili unaojitegemea?

Click to expand...

Mahakama kazi yake kucross check compliance ya kisheria popote .ikiwemo kampuni yako binafsi kama mmetofautiana na wanao.

Kazi ya uspika ipo kisheria ,majukumu na namna ya utekelezaji wake upo kisheria.

Mwanasheria mkuu wa serikali ni cheo kilichozaliwa kisheria.majukumu ,mipaka na utekelezaji wake upo kisheria .

Mahakama itaenda kusikiliza malalamiko ya mpina na kuangalia je mchakato ulizingatia au haukuzongatia sheria inavosema .
Usiwe na wasiwasi mtanange ni mkali japo nasubiri niIone hoja kama mwanasheria kazipangilia ila ni kesi tata bado mpaka nisome details

The only said:

Mahakama kazi yake kucross check compliance ya kisheria popote .ikiwemo kampuni yako binafsi kama mmetofautiana na wanao.

Kazi ya uspika ipo kisheria ,majukumu na namna ya utekelezaji wake upo kisheria.

Mwanasheria mkuu wa serikali ni cheo kilichozaliwa kisheria.majukumu ,mipaka na utekelezaji wake upo kisheria .

Mahakama itaenda kusikiliza malalamiko ya mpina na kuangalia je mchakato ulizingatia au haukuzongatia sheria inavosema .
Usiwe na wasiwasi mtanange ni mkali japo nasubiri niIone hoja kama mwanasheria kazipangilia ila ni kesi tata bado mpaka nisome details

Click to expand...

Huko kwa AG na Bashe kunaweza kuwa na kesi, kwa sababu hao hawana explicit immunity hakafu madudu ni mengi na marefu.

Spika ana sheria ya immunity inamlinda. Pia, mahakama ya Tanzania ilishawahi kukataa kusikiliza kesi ya mgogoro wa Bungeni kwa kusema hayo ni mambo ya Bunge yamalizwe bungeni.

Hata hapa, kwenye kesi ya kumshitaki Spika, naona mahakama itasema hilo ni suala la Spika anavyoendesha Bunge na mahakama kutoa hukumu ni kuharibu separation of powers.

Kiranga said:

Hao wanasheria wengine hata kama wanajua hapa hakuna kesi, wanaweza kumjaza ujinga Mpina ili wale pesa zake tu.

Ila kiukweli hapa Mahakama itaitupilia mbali hii kesi kabla hata ya kuisikikiza kwa kina.

Kwa sababu ya "separation of powers".

How do people not see something that is so obvious?

Click to expand...

Kitabu kipya ndio solution ya hii kitu

Chaliifrancisco said:

Kitabu kipya ndio solution ya hii kitu

Click to expand...

Kanuni za separation of powers zinakataza mahakama kuingilia uendeshaji Bunge.

Utaweka sheria ya kuruhusu mahakama kuingilia Spika anavyoongoza Bunge, halafu utakuwa na rais asiyempenda Spika wa Bunge ambaye ataweza kuitumia mahakama kumtoa Spika wa Bunge.

Hapo utakuwa unatengeneza tatizo lingine tu.

Ideally mahakama inatakiwa kuwa as far as possible na shuguli za uendeshaji wa Bunge, Bunge lijiongoze lenyewe. Wabunge wawe na nguvu mpaka za kumuondoa Spika. Bunge ni muhimili unaojitosheleza. Ni hatari sana kuwa na mfumo ambao mahakama ina nguvu nyingi za kuliingilia Bunge. Ndiyo maaana tukawa na separation of powers.

Kiranga said:

Kanuni za separation of powers zinakataza mahakama kuingilia uendeshaji Bunge.

Utaweka sheria ya kuruhusu mahakama kuingilia Spika anavyoongoza Bunge, halafu utakuwa na rais asiyempenda Spika wa Bunge ambaye ataweza kuitumia mahakama kumtoa Spika wa Bunge.

Hapo utakuwa unatengeneza tatizo lingine tu.

Ideally mahakama inatakiwa kuwa as far as possible na shuguli za uendeshaji wa Bunge, Bunge lijiongoze lenyewe. Wabunge wawe na nguvu mpaka za kumuondoa Spika. Bunge ni muhimili unaojitosheleza. Ni hatari sana kuwa na mfumo ambao mahakama ina nguvu nyingi za kuliingilia Bunge. Ndiyo maaana tukawa na separation of powers.

Click to expand...

But Checks and Balances do not really apply in Tanzania. It is not practical because the parliament is almost all one party parliament.

Chaliifrancisco said:

But Checks and Balances do not really apply in Tanzania. It is not practical because the parliament is almost all one party parliament.

Click to expand...

That is a separate problem, a political problem, a problem of civic education.

Hutakiwi kusema kwa kuwa Bunge ni kama la chama kimoja, basi turuhusu mahakama ilipangie bunge cha kufanya.

Yani badala ya kutatua tatizo la kwanza (bunge kuwa kama la chama kimoja) unakuwa unatengeneza tatizo la pili la kuruhusu mahakama ilipangie bunge nini cha kufanya.

Kiranga said:

Huko kwa AG na Bashe kunaweza kuwa na kesi, kwa sababu hao hawana explicit immunity hakafu madudu ni mengi na marefu.

Spika ana sheria ya immunity inamlinda. Pia, mahakama ya Tanzania ilishawahi kukataa kusikiliza kesi ya mgogoro wa Bungeni kwa kusema hayo ni mambo ya Bunge yamalizwe bungeni.

Hata hapa, kwenye kesi ya kumshitaki Spika, naona mahakama itasema hilo ni suala la Spika anavyoendesha Bunge na mahakama kutoa hukumu ni kuharibu separation of powers.

Click to expand...

Mkuu una make sense,kuna namna ya kucheza na kiti chenye immunity unamshitaki kwa jina lake bila cheo na kucheza na personal malpractices ,mfano polisi huwa huweki cheo chake wanahamishia kuwa umeshitaki jeshi kama alikukamata bila kibali unajifanya hutambui kama ni polisi unamshitaki kwa jina lake na unaweka la utani mfano acuse hassan shomari also known as baba amina.
Anyway kesho ntakula nondo niangalie ,saizi naona nimelewa hii grants ngoja nikatafute malaya hapo boardroom sinza.gdnt

Kiranga said:

That is a separate problem, a political problem, a problem of civic education.

Hutakiwi kusema kwa kuwa Bunge ni kama la chama kimoja, basi turuhusu mahakama ilipangie bunge cha kufanya.

Yani badala ya kutatua tatizo la kwanza (bunge kuwa kama la chama kimoja) unakuwa unatengeneza tatizo la pili la kuruhusu mahakama ilipangie bunge nini cha kufanya.

Click to expand...

Yeah ni kweli ulichoandika. So tukubali kwenda hivi hivi. Suluhisho la bunge kutokuwa la chama kimoja ni kuwa na kitabu kipya na tume huru pia.

So tunarudi kwenye kitabu kipya. Au wewe suluhisho unafikiri ni nini?

John Wickzer Mulholland said:

Anajisumbua bure tu.

Mwambieni Luhaga Mpina kwamba ajiunge na wa-Tanzania wengine wenye mapenzi mema na nchi hii ambao wanapigania Haki, Demokrasia pamoja na upatikanaji wa Katiba Mpya iliyo nzuri yenye kubeba Maoni, mawazo na fikra za Wananchi walio wengi zaidi kwenye nchi hii.
Suala la upatikanaji wa Katiba Mpya iliyo Bora nchini Tanzania siyo Jambo linalowahusu CHADEMA au Wanasiasa peke yao.

Click to expand...

Binafsi naona akijiunga na hao CHADEMA hata quality yake itadrop, akazie akiwa palepale alipozaliwa

Zimmermann said:

Tutafika tu mzee. Hawa CCM ni lazima kuwakabia kwa juu, wasipumue...

Click to expand...

Kabisa Mkuu

FaizaFoxy said:

Wameshindwa kesi kabla haijaanza.

Wakili wa kwanza anasema "Wanashitaki viwanda vya sukari kupata hasara" wakati anayeshitaki hana kiwanda cha sukari.

halafu wakati huohuo kesi ya boiashara unaofanya ya kikatiba.

Ujuha huo.

Hawa wanaisumbuwa mahakama, walipe ghatrama za kesi na wawalipe wanaowachafuwa majina.,3

Kesi hii itaishia Mpina kufilisiwa siyo tu na aliowashitaki bali na wenye viwanda pia.

Hivi Mwenye kiwanda kipi cha sukari Tanzania anauwezo wa kusimama na kuipinga serikali?

Huyo wa kwanza, macho yake yameanza kulia kabla hajalizwa.

Click to expand...

Nmepitia comments zote , hii ya kwako imekaa kilevi, nafikiri ni mda wa kupunguza viherehere kama jambo liko juu ya upeo wako. Ndo busara

Mzee Mwanakijiji said:

Ukiangalia mambo mengi ni marudio tu

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Ngoja tuone

Ova

Kiranga said:

Weka kesi ya Spekaker wa bunge la sovereign state, hivyo vibunge vya kata vya Maharaja sitambui vinafuata mfumo wa Maharaja gani.

Click to expand...

Kiranga,

Hoja yako ya kwanza ilikuwa kuhusu spika wa bunge kuwa challenged Mahakamani, hakuna sehemu uliniambia unahitaji A federal parliament and not state legislative assembly. Your new allegations is afterthought.

Hata hivyo, nimekuletea hukumu ya Mahakama dhidi ya Spika wa Bunge la Namibia.

Mahakama ilitengua maamuzi ya spika na ku disregard hiyo parliamentary immunity na separation of power ambayo unaitaja bila kuelewa mipaka yake.
Soma hukumu nime attach hapo chini, ujione jinsi gani haujui sheria.

Kiranga said:

Kwani nani kasema they are excluded?

Why are you repeating this logical non sequitur fallacy?

Mimi nakwambia hata zikiwa reviewed, mahakama itakataa kusikiliza kesi ya Spika kuhusu anavyoendesha bunge.

Wewe unaniambia kuna Judicial Review.

That is a logical fallacy, logical non sequitur.

Just because there is judicial review, that does not guarantee that the court will take a case against the Speaker regarding how she runs the parliament.

Logical non sequitur fallacy.

Click to expand...

Umekariri vistori vya hapa na pale.

In fact, hujapata muda kuelewa Parliamentary Privileges & Separation of Powers with it’s limits.

Ndio maana nilikueleza mwanzo, kwenye sheria, General rules ( ambazo una assert kila muda) they’ve got an exception.

Ukisoma kesi hiyo ya National Assembly of Namibia utaelewa sasa.

Questions of administrative law and human rights—whether they take place within or outside Parliament—should be most appropriately judged by the courts.

Kiranga said:

Kanuni za separation of powers zinakataza mahakama kuingilia uendeshaji Bunge.

Utaweka sheria ya kuruhusu mahakama kuingilia Spika anavyoongoza Bunge, halafu utakuwa na rais asiyempenda Spika wa Bunge ambaye ataweza kuitumia mahakama kumtoa Spika wa Bunge.

Hapo utakuwa unatengeneza tatizo lingine tu.

Ideally mahakama inatakiwa kuwa as far as possible na shuguli za uendeshaji wa Bunge, Bunge lijiongoze lenyewe. Wabunge wawe na nguvu mpaka za kumuondoa Spika. Bunge ni muhimili unaojitosheleza. Ni hatari sana kuwa na mfumo ambao mahakama ina nguvu nyingi za kuliingilia Bunge. Ndiyo maaana tukawa na separation of powers.

Click to expand...

Unaongea kama utopian.

Absolute separation of power is nonexistent in this World.

Hata ingekuwepo, it has a lot of setbacks, since it requires every pillars of state to confine itself within limit of power and none of other pillar should encroach upon functions meant to be performed exclusively by each organ.

Function of Parliament is to make law, Judiciary to adjudicate and Executive is to enforce those laws.

In Modern society, that’s highly impracticable since Parliament does adjudicate on its functions, Judiciary can make laws within certain limits, Executive too can make delegated legislation as well as it can prepare legislative drafting ( bills making).

Albeit that, if separation of power were absolute, then, Parliament would not be able to adjudicate any dispute occurred within or outside parliament since that is function of Judiciary and thus, Speaker Tulia Ackson would have not be allowed to read and intreprete Standing Orders which suspended Mpina as that would be interferring with separation of power. UMEELEWA SASA?

Zollensky said:

Kiranga,

Hoja yako ya kwanza ilikuwa kuhusu spika wa bunge kuwa challenged Mahakamani, hakuna sehemu uliniambia unahitaji A federal parliament and not state legislative assembly. Your new allegations is afterthought.

Hata hivyo, nimekuletea hukumu ya Mahakama dhidi ya Spika wa Bunge la Namibia.

Mahakama ilitengua maamuzi ya spika na ku disregard hiyo parliamentary immunity na separation of power ambayo unaitaja bila kuelewa mipaka yake.
Soma hukumu nime attach hapo chini, ujione jinsi gani haujui sheria.

Click to expand...

Asante kwa mfano huu.

Nimesoma yote mpaka mwisho. Very interesting arguments.

This judgement, even as it is against the Speaker, it is actually making my point. It clearly states that the practice in Commonwealth countries, citing Britain, Canada, India, South Africa and Zimbabwe is for separation of powers to take precedence. It states that Namibia is a deviation from this practice due to its constitution.

That is the point I am making.

Zollensky said:

Umekariri vistori vya hapa na pale.

In fact, hujapata muda kuelewa Parliamentary Privileges & Separation of Powers with it’s limits.

Ndio maana nilikueleza mwanzo, kwenye sheria, General rules ( ambazo una assert kila muda) they’ve got an exception.

Ukisoma kesi hiyo ya National Assembly of Namibia utaelewa sasa.

Questions of administrative law and human rights—whether they take place within or outside Parliament—should be most appropriately judged by the courts.

Click to expand...

Nimeisoma yote. Kesi yenyewe inasema kuwa Namibia wame deviate from Commonwealth countries standards kwa sababu ya katiba yao. The judgement, despite being against the Speaker, is making my point.