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

Mijadala ya Uchaguzi Mkuu wa Tanzania 2025 (Kabla, wakati na baada)
Hii inasikitisha sana
 
Yes inaweza toa ndo maana kuna kitu cha chek and balance, ndo maana waziri anayetokana na Serikali anaweza wajibishwa na Mahakama au wakatoa ruling ya nini kifanyike, Ila hapo ni naongelea zenye kuweza kutafuna mfupa siyo za kubugia uji

Britanicca
I was looking for this reply. Thanks!
 
Ad Hominem Attacks,huwezi kutoa hoja bila kumu attack mtu kama sehemu ya hoja?
 
Kifungu kinasemaje?
 
Anayetafuta haki ni Mpina dhidi ya maamuzi ya spika kumsuspend vikao 15 mfululizo, kitu anachodai ni kinyume na sheria ya bunge.

Let’s assume ni kweli, Spika alivunja sheria ya bunge.

Swali, Je, Mpina aendelee kukaa benchi kwa maamuzi yaliyovunja sheria? Kwasababu tu ya separation of powers?

NB: Tanzania doesn’t have absolute separation of powers, no wonder Ministers and Chief Justice can make laws legally binding.
 
Kwahiyo hapa anayeshtakiwa ni spika wa BUNGE au BUNGE ?

Maana tunapata uelewa kadiri tunavyojadili namna Hii,

Je Rango akiharibu utaratibu anapaswa kushtakiwa wapi ?

Britanicca
 
Kiranga,

Upo sahihi unaposema “ Judiciary cannot meddle into affairs of Parliament “. I remember this quote from one of the notable precedent. I think one of Mtikila’s cases.

However, in law, every general rule has got an exception, there’s an exception to the rule of court abstinence from meddling in affairs of parliament. Mpina’s scenario is an exception.
 
While there’s a separation of powers, there’s also check and balance of power.

Unafahamu maana ya Judicial Review?
Judicial review ni namna mahakama inavyotafsiri sheria na kurejea jinsi matawi yanavyofanya kazi na sheria.

Mahakama inaweza kukataa kusikikiza kesi ya shauri la binge linavyojiendesha kama sehemu ya separation of powers na checks and balance.

Separation of powers ni kugawanya mihimili legislature, judiciary and executive.

Checks and balance ni kila muhimili kuuangalia muhimili mwingine usiharibu.

Mahakama haitakiwi kuliingilia Bunge kuhusiana na jinsi linavyojiendesha. Bunge lina kanuni zake kufanya hivyo.
 
Mpina katolewa nje ya Bunge kwa maamuzi yaliyovunja sheria gani?
 
Kwahiyo hapa anayeshtakiwa ni spika wa BUNGE au BUNGE ?

Maana tunapata uelewa kadiri tunavyojadili namna Hii,

Je Rango akiharibu utaratibu anapaswa kushtakiwa wapi ?

Britanicca
Anashtakiwa Spika wa Bunge.

Kichwa cha thread kinasema "Luhaga Mpina amshtaki Spika Tulia na Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali kwa kuondolewa Bungeni kinyume na Sheria".

Spika akiharibu utaratibu, Bunge lina kanuni zake za kumuadhibu, mpaka kumvua Uspika kwa kura yavkukosa imani naye.

Spika akiharibu utaratibu wa Bunge, hashtakiwi mahakamani. Bunge ni muhimili unaojitosheleza kwenye hili.
 
Kwahiyo hapa anayeshtakiwa ni spika wa BUNGE au BUNGE ?

Maana tunapata uelewa kadiri tunavyojadili namna Hii,

Je Rango akiharibu utaratibu anapaswa kushtakiwa wapi ?

Britanicca
Ndio maana nimemuuliza Kiranga, anaelewa maana ya Judicial Review?

Pia, arejee ibara 107A ya Katiba. Mahakama ndio Mamlaka ya MWISHO kwenye kutoa haki.

Mpina, anadai kuvunjiwa haki yake, kwa kupitia Ibara 107A, anaenda kwenye Mamlaka ya mwisho kwenye utoaji haki- Mahakama.

“He who knocks doors of court must not be left empty handed “
 
In a normal functioning democracy,
Checks and balance kati ya mihimili ni pamoja na mahakama kuwa na uwezo kuliambia bunge au kuiambia executive hapa mmevunja katiba ya nchi au sheria, kanuni na taratibu mlizojiwekea katika kuendesha mihimili ya nchi. Pia sehemu ya Checks and balances ni pamoja na mahakama kutengua sheria, kanuni na taratibu zote zinazokinzana na katiba pale ambapo bunge au executive wanaweka vitu vya aina hiyo vilivyo kinyume na katiba.
 
Mpina kavunjiwa haki gani?

Mbunge tu, mbunge wa kawaida, achilia mbali Spika, mbunge akiharibu mambo bungeni, akimpakazia mtu uongo, akipika data, akitukana, hawezi kushtakiwa na kuhukumiwa mahakamani. Kwa sababu ana parliamentary immunity.

Sasa unataka kusema Spika ndiyo anaweza kushtakiwa na kuhukumiwa mahakamani kwa shauri la mambo ya anavyoendesha Bunge?

Huelewi kuwa wabunge wote wakiwa Bungeni wana parliamentary immunity, na Spika naye anatetewa na separation of powers asishitakiwe mahakamani kwa jinsi anavyoendesha Bunge kama mkuu wa muhimili?

Moina labda awaburuze hao kina Attorney General na Bashe, lakininkwa Spika alivyomtoa Bungeni, hapo hamna kesi. Mahakama itasema hiki ni beef lenu la Bungeni, kalimalizeni Bungeni.
 
Kwa kuongezea tu, Judicial Review inafanyika where disgruntled party wants to challenge decisions of authorities which he deem them to be illegal, unreasonable, procedural irregularities etc and it’s ONLY APPLICABLE WHERE THERE IS NO ROOM FOR APPEAL such a decision. Rejea Saga na Wabunge waliofukuzwa Chadema.

Thus, Mpina wants to challenge decision of speaker based on illegalities and procedural irregularities, which under law is rightly so.
 
Bunge halijitoshelezi katika kumdhibiti spika au kusimamia haki, sheria, kanuni na taratibu zake. Mahakama ndio inajitosheleza katika usimamizi wa haki na ndio chombo cha mwisho cha utoaji haki katika nchi na kutatua migogoro yote. Ndio maana kuna hadi mahakama ya katiba kushughulika na executive au bunge panapotokea mtafaruku wa kikatiba.
 
Kifungu kinasemaje?
kifungu hicho kinazungumzia makosa ya Waandishi wa Habari wanapoingia katika vikao vya Bunge bila kufuata utaratibu.

Kifungu hicho ndicho kilichotumika kumuadhibu Mpina.

Mahakama inaweza kabisa kutoa ufafanuzi endapo kifungu hicho ni sahihi kutumika kumuadhibu mbunge.
 
Thanks for this.

Utamu wa sheria upo kwenye TAFSIRI.
 
National Standing Orders,2023.
Hivi mmesahau Spika katungiwa sheria maalum ya kumlinda dhidi ya mashitaka?

Far and specifically explicitly above the default parliamentary immunity?

Mmesahau mara hii?

Au hii sheria ilibatilishwa?

"On June 10, parliament passed amendments to the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act to restrict public interest lawsuits by limiting the ability of groups to challenge a law or policy that allegedly violates the constitution’s bill of rights. The restriction appeared to be aimed at stopping groups from filing purely public interest litigation without showing harm to an accuser. The amendment also provided broad immunity from civil and criminal cases to top government officials, including the president, vice president, prime minister, speaker, and chief justice."

 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…