Kiranga
Platinum Member
- Jan 29, 2009
- 78,790
- 128,275
You are using a strawman argument logical fallacy.
You are arguing against a point I did not make.
Sijasema kuna absolute anything anywhere.
Even this statement is not absolute.
You are using a strawman argument logical fallacy.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?
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 mjadal
Sihitaji kutumia akili nyingi kwenye huu mjadala, nataka kusema hivi kilichotokea mpaka spika akajiulizu mwenyewe kinawezekana hata mahakamani.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.
Kwani wapi nimesema hakiwezekani?Sihitaji kutumia akili nyingi kwenye huu mjadala, nataka kusema hivi kilichotokea mpaka spika akajiulizu mwenyewe kinawezekana hata mahakamani.
Unaelewa nachozungumza ni vile hutaki
Bunge la Tanzania sio la mfumo wa common wealth in practice. Kwenye bunge la commonwealth speaker anatakiwa kuwa neutral.I am not merely using logic.
Nimekwambia nipe precedent kutoka Commonwealth Country/ Westminster parliament Speaker alipohukumiwa na mahakama kwa kosa la kazi za kibunge.
Hujaweza kuweka hiyo precedent.
Ila Tanzania kuna kesi mahakama ilikataa kuisikiliza kwa kusema haya ni mashauri ya Bungeni, rudini mkayamalize bungeni. Mahakama haitaki kuingilia mambo ya bunge.
First things first.Bunge la Tanzania sio la mfumo wa common wealth in practice. Kwenye bunge la commonwealth speaker anatakiwa kuwa neutral.
Pia hata kama bunge lingekuwa la mfumo wa commonwealth pande nyingine za utawala(mahakama na executive) haviko katika mfumo commonwealth na havifungiwi na mfumo huo.
Ha ha ha, Nashukuru ume admit mwenyewe Court can make a judgement against speaker. Kitu ambacho ulikuwa hukubali mwanzo.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
It only proves point of sovereignty.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.
Nuance my dude, nuance. Nimekuwa very nuanced kwenye arguments zangu, ila hutaki kuona nuance.Ha ha ha, Nashukuru ume admit mwenyewe Court can make a judgement against speaker. Kitu ambacho ulikuwa hukubali mwanzo.
That being settled, umekuja na kihoja kipya cha deviation from common law standards.
Nakujibu ifuatavyo, Namibia is Sovereign state, thus, it’s not bound to abide by any external influence on conducting it’s internal affairs within geographical boundaries.
Similarly, Court of law are not bound to follow every common law practices ( they’re usually persuasive not binding upon courts).
For those reasons stated, it was not alien thing for Namibia to deviate from common law standard.
Likewise Tanzania, it’s sovereign state, is free from conducting it’s internal affairs from external pressure including judiciary’s freedom to depart from common law practices.
Hoja yako ya Deviation is obsolete in the eyes of law.
By implication you did say each organ should not meddle into affairs of other organs because of separation of power, And in theory, Separation of power are of two kinds, Absolute ( total) separation of power and Partial ( neutral) separation of power.You are using a strawman argument logical fallacy.
You are arguing against a point I did not make.
Sijasema kuna absolute anything anywhere.
Even this statement is not absolute.
Which proves that Tanzania can and has entrenched itself even more towards parliamentary immunity by having a law that explicitly protects the Speaker from the courts.It only proves point of sovereignty.
WRONG!Nuance my dude, nuance. Nimekuwa very nuanced kwenye arguments zangu, ila hutaki kuona nuance.
Ukweli ni kwamba, sijasema kuwa court haiwezi kumhukumu Spika.
To the contrary, nimesema explicitly kwamba Spika anaweza kuhujumiwa na mahakama. Nikatoa mfano kwamba Spika akipigana na jirani yake, anaweza kushitakiwa na kuhukumiwa na mahakama.
Again, you are making a strawman argument logical fallacy.
By implication you did say each organ should not meddle into affairs of other organs because of separation of power, And in theory, Separation of power are of two kinds, Absolute ( total) separation of power and Partial ( neutral) separation of power.
Based on your previous arguments, you implied absolute separation of power.
NOPE!!Which proves that Tanzania can and has entrenched itself even more towards parliamentary immunity by having a law that explicitly protects the Speaker from the courts.
Even your sovereignty point shows that Tanzania can go, and did go, far and above the usual Commonwealth countries constitutional parliamentary immunity.
Sio kweli.No implication is needed where I stated things categorically.
Nimeandika hapa Spika anaweza kuhukumiwa na mahakama.
Hujafuatilia nilichoandika tu.
Hiyo judgement yenyewe imejionesha kuwa ni unusual, imesema katika nchi za Commonwealth kama Uingereza, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Canada na India kitu hiki si cha kawaida, kimewezekana Namibia kutokana na katiba yao tu.WRONG!
Ulisema nikuletee judgement duniani among common law countries ambapo Mahakama imetoa hukumu dhidi ya spika, you were denying hakuna hichi kitu.
Nikuletea ushahidi wa kimaandishi unaleta siasa 😂
Ushahidi wa kutetea hoja yangu unataka kunichagulia wewe?Sio kweli.
Leta ushahidi wa post zile za mwanzo ukikubali spika anaweza hukumiwa na Mahakama among common law countries.
I’m waiting!
Unusual kivipi wakati kuna precedent ya 1999 ya South Africa, ambapo Speaker of the National Assembly was held liable by Court following misconduct of affairs within parliament? The Court had vehemently denied defense raised by Speaker on Parliamentary immunity.Hiyo judgement yenyewe imejionesha kuwa ni unusual, imesema katika nchi za Commonwealth kama Uingereza, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Canada na India kitu hiki si cha kawaida, kimewezekana Namibia kutokana na katiba yao tu.
Tanzania tumeenda mbali zaidi ya Commonwealth constitutional separation of powers kwa kuweka sheria maalum ya kuwa protect rais, jaji mkuu na spika kutoka kushitakiwa mahakamani.
Kuna jamaa alimshitaki Magufuli, wanasheria wa Serikali wakafikiri presidential immunity itamlinda Magufuli, ikaonekana haitamlinda, wakatunga sheria mpya ya kuwalinda Rais, Jaji Mkuu na Spika kutoka kushitakiwa mahakamani.
Kumbuka Adoo Shaibu vs Honorable John Pombe Magufuli
Subiri uone Mpina atakavyorudishwa Bungeni kwenye kesi ya Spika.
Angalia immunity act
Tanzania MPs approve law granting president immunity
Rights groups, opposition slam bill - Anadolu Ajansıwww.aa.com.tr
Tanzania passes Bill to give leaders immunity
It protects leaders from being sued in their individual capacities.www.theeastafrican.co.ke
Kwa nini unaandikia mate wakati wino upo?
Judgement uliyoiweka wewe mwenyewe ndiyo imesema hayo maneno, si mimi.Unusual kivipi wakati kuna precedent ya 1999 ya South Africa, ambapo Speaker of the National Assembly was held liable by Court following misconduct of affairs within parliament? The Court had vehemently denied defense raised by Speaker on Parliamentary immunity.
Nimekuwekea case usome.
Na nilikwambia tangu mwanzo precedents zipo ni za kutafuta tu.
Now I can rest my case b’se I’ve successfully defended my claim that Speaker of National Assembly same like Ours in Tanzania can be subject to Judicial review based on his decision, which Court has power to set aside and order for Compliance, You strongly opposed this by pointing out parliamentary immunity and Separation of power.
Ha ha ha, look at you now.Ushahidi wa kutetea hoja yangu unataka kunichagulia wewe?
Does that make sense to you?