S. S. Phares
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 27, 2006
- 2,138
- 85
Naombeni kuelimishwa wana JF,
Nini tofauti ya Jaji Mkuu na Jaji Kiongozi?
Shukhrani.
Nini tofauti ya Jaji Mkuu na Jaji Kiongozi?
Shukhrani.
Mgombea binafsi Tanzania: Tatizo ni nini?
Mgombea binafsi Tanzania: Tatizo ni nini?
- Thread starter Chambusiso
- Start date
Mzee Mwanakijiji
Platinum Member
- Mar 10, 2006
- 33,771
- 41,027
Jaji Mkuu.. ni Jaji Mkuu wa Tanzania.. ni mkuu wa idara nzima ya Mahakama.. (Chief Justice).. Jaji Kiongozi wa Majaji wote wa Mahakama Kuu na hivyo ndiye mkuu wa Mahakama Kuu.. in a nutshell. Kiwadhifa Jaji Mkuu yuko juu ya Jaji Kiongozi.
Mkuu Mwanakijiji,
Ongeza ufafanuzi kidogo ... mimi nilidhani kwamba Jaji Kiongozi ni Mkuu wa Majaji wote wa Mahakama Kuu + Mahakimu wa mahakama zote zilizo chini ya Mahakama Kuu (mahakama za mikoa, mahakama za wilaya na mahakama za mwanzo), au niko wrong?
Swali la nyongeza, je, Jaji wa Mahakama ya Rufani anaweza kuteuliwa kuwa Jaji Kiongozi? Au Jaji Kiongozi lazima awe Jaji wa Mahakama Kuu tu?
Ongeza ufafanuzi kidogo ... mimi nilidhani kwamba Jaji Kiongozi ni Mkuu wa Majaji wote wa Mahakama Kuu + Mahakimu wa mahakama zote zilizo chini ya Mahakama Kuu (mahakama za mikoa, mahakama za wilaya na mahakama za mwanzo), au niko wrong?
Swali la nyongeza, je, Jaji wa Mahakama ya Rufani anaweza kuteuliwa kuwa Jaji Kiongozi? Au Jaji Kiongozi lazima awe Jaji wa Mahakama Kuu tu?
Mzee Mwanakijiji
Platinum Member
- Mar 10, 2006
- 33,771
- 41,027
Jibu ni ndiyo uko sahihi;
nadhani unaweza kuangalia zaidi kwenye Katiba (nadhani ibara ya 108)
Andrew Nyerere
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 10, 2008
- 3,007
- 2,451
One thing occurs to me,kwamba kama kwa mfano,ukiahirisha Uchaguzi kwa ajili ya haya matatizo ya Mgombea binafsi,muda wa Rais Kikwete kutawala utakwisha,kwa hiyo atakuwa siyo Rais tena,baada ya five years of solar time to elapse since his inauguration,itakuwa illegal kwa yeye kuitwa Rais.
kwa hiyo itahijika Serikali ya mpito,kwa hiyo,ni mihimu kwa haya mambo,kuhusu mgombea binafsi,yatanzuliwe upesi. It is just a thought.
Kuhusu kama ataweza kuendelea kuwa Rais ni jambo la Constitutional lawyers to decide. Halafu.wakati huo, kutakuwa hakuna Bunge, sasa sijui Rais atapata vipi madaraka ya kuendelea na Uongozi.
kwa hiyo itahijika Serikali ya mpito,kwa hiyo,ni mihimu kwa haya mambo,kuhusu mgombea binafsi,yatanzuliwe upesi. It is just a thought.
Kuhusu kama ataweza kuendelea kuwa Rais ni jambo la Constitutional lawyers to decide. Halafu.wakati huo, kutakuwa hakuna Bunge, sasa sijui Rais atapata vipi madaraka ya kuendelea na Uongozi.
Lekanjobe Kubinika
JF-Expert Member
- Dec 6, 2006
- 3,019
- 579
Chichi wengine hapo bwana wewe ni machikio kuchikiliza tu, chule kubwa hiyo.
hilbajojo2009
Member
- May 25, 2009
- 46
- 1
Jaji Mark Bomani pamoja na mambo mengine katika waraka wake anaunga mkono mgombea binafsi katika nafasi mbalimbali za uongozi. Mimi binafsi namuunga mkono kwa sababu kupiga kura na kupigiwa kura ni haki ya kila raia wa nchi hii ili mradi atimize masharti.http://www.mwananchi.co.tz/newsrids.asp?id=18637
Nini maoni yako?
Nini maoni yako?
BAK
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 11, 2007
- 124,790
- 288,165
By LEVINA KATO, 8th April 2010 @ 12:00
DAILY NEWS
THE two parties locked horns today on whether or not the Court of Appeal should fault the High Courts ruling on private candidates in parliamentary and presidential elections.
Deputy Attorney General, Mr George Masaju argued before a full bench of seven judges under Chief Justice, Mr Augustino Ramadhani that the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case.
Mr Masaju who spent 3:35 hours to defend his argument, said that the Court of Appeal should overrule the judgment delivered by the High Court to allow private candidates in the general elections. The State, according to Mr Masaju, feels the court erred by subjecting the judgment on international instruments on the universal declaration on human rights and not the Constitution of the country.
The High Court violated the Constitution by referring the judgment on an article which is non-existent. So, the High Court has no mandate to assume the mandate of the legislature, Mr Masaju added.
He also charged that any decision regarding amendments of the Constitution is decided after being approved by two-thirds of Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Representatives (in the case of Isles).
Therefore, it was the Union High Court which was supposed to hear this case and not the High Court on Tanzania Mainland, he explained further.
He also argued that the High Court did not take account of all issues which were raised by the government during the proceedings, a factor that, he said, led it to rule on matters which were not agreed upon by the two parties.
Advocates Richard Rweyongeza and Mpale Mpoki for respondents submitted that the appeal by the government should be dismissed with costs because it lacked merit. The advocates who are representing Reverend Christopher Mtikila submitted that the High Court ruling was valid and the judgment was made in the best interest of defending the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
Mr Rweyongeza differed with Mr Masaju arguing that the High Court actually did it right by basing its decision on human rights because that was the essence for writing the Constitution.
There are some basic human rights which cannot be put to limitation or restricted. It is high time we contemplate on limiting the powers of the legislature," the advocate noted, denouncing the argument that the parliament has absolute powers.
Mr Rweyongeza further argued that the court has legal powers to strike out any irrelevant provisions and refer to the responsible authority for amendments.
The court judgment was within its powers and ought not to be disputed, he said, querying what the court would do if there is a provision in the Constitution that violates it.
Mr Mpoki pleaded with the court to ignore some of the citations by the government in its appeal saying they were not relevant to the case in court. Earlier in the day, the court cornered the Deputy Attorney General who challenged the mandate of the High Court to hear the case.
Part of the proceedings was as follows:
Mr Masaju: The court erred by basing its decision on the original article which is non-existent. The existing provisions that include Article 4 do not give powers to the court to repeal the law.
Judge: Does Article 30(3) give the court the mandate to declare any provision unlawfully?
Mr Masaju: The court can make comment but not a declaration
Judge: What happens if two provision of the constitution are conflicting each other, should the court remain silent?
Mr Masaju: The court should refer to plain meaning of the provisions because one article of the Constitution cannot destroy another but sustaining each other.
Judge: You said the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear this case. Which court then has that mandate?
Mr Masaju: The Union High Court.
Judge: Where is it?
Mr Masaju: It does not exist.
Judge: Read Article 108 of the Constitution (Mr Masaju reads the provision).
Judge: How have you interpreted that?
Mr Masaju: The Union High Court is the High Court of Tanzania.
After the heated legal argument the court adjourned the session to tomorrow.
DAILY NEWS
THE two parties locked horns today on whether or not the Court of Appeal should fault the High Courts ruling on private candidates in parliamentary and presidential elections.
Deputy Attorney General, Mr George Masaju argued before a full bench of seven judges under Chief Justice, Mr Augustino Ramadhani that the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case.
Mr Masaju who spent 3:35 hours to defend his argument, said that the Court of Appeal should overrule the judgment delivered by the High Court to allow private candidates in the general elections. The State, according to Mr Masaju, feels the court erred by subjecting the judgment on international instruments on the universal declaration on human rights and not the Constitution of the country.
The High Court violated the Constitution by referring the judgment on an article which is non-existent. So, the High Court has no mandate to assume the mandate of the legislature, Mr Masaju added.
He also charged that any decision regarding amendments of the Constitution is decided after being approved by two-thirds of Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Representatives (in the case of Isles).
Therefore, it was the Union High Court which was supposed to hear this case and not the High Court on Tanzania Mainland, he explained further.
He also argued that the High Court did not take account of all issues which were raised by the government during the proceedings, a factor that, he said, led it to rule on matters which were not agreed upon by the two parties.
Advocates Richard Rweyongeza and Mpale Mpoki for respondents submitted that the appeal by the government should be dismissed with costs because it lacked merit. The advocates who are representing Reverend Christopher Mtikila submitted that the High Court ruling was valid and the judgment was made in the best interest of defending the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
Mr Rweyongeza differed with Mr Masaju arguing that the High Court actually did it right by basing its decision on human rights because that was the essence for writing the Constitution.
There are some basic human rights which cannot be put to limitation or restricted. It is high time we contemplate on limiting the powers of the legislature," the advocate noted, denouncing the argument that the parliament has absolute powers.
Mr Rweyongeza further argued that the court has legal powers to strike out any irrelevant provisions and refer to the responsible authority for amendments.
The court judgment was within its powers and ought not to be disputed, he said, querying what the court would do if there is a provision in the Constitution that violates it.
Mr Mpoki pleaded with the court to ignore some of the citations by the government in its appeal saying they were not relevant to the case in court. Earlier in the day, the court cornered the Deputy Attorney General who challenged the mandate of the High Court to hear the case.
Part of the proceedings was as follows:
Mr Masaju: The court erred by basing its decision on the original article which is non-existent. The existing provisions that include Article 4 do not give powers to the court to repeal the law.
Judge: Does Article 30(3) give the court the mandate to declare any provision unlawfully?
Mr Masaju: The court can make comment but not a declaration
Judge: What happens if two provision of the constitution are conflicting each other, should the court remain silent?
Mr Masaju: The court should refer to plain meaning of the provisions because one article of the Constitution cannot destroy another but sustaining each other.
Judge: You said the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear this case. Which court then has that mandate?
Mr Masaju: The Union High Court.
Judge: Where is it?
Mr Masaju: It does not exist.
Judge: Read Article 108 of the Constitution (Mr Masaju reads the provision).
Judge: How have you interpreted that?
Mr Masaju: The Union High Court is the High Court of Tanzania.
After the heated legal argument the court adjourned the session to tomorrow.
S. S. Phares
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 27, 2006
- 2,138
- 85
Serikali inaonekana kama vile lengo lake ni kusogeza siku tu kwenye hii kesi. Hoja yao kama hii iko dhaifu mno.
Yaani hii watu kama wakina Masaju ndio inayotuamulia fate yetu sisi wananchi!. No wonder tunaibiwa kila siku kwenye mikataba na ma-investors. Hii ndio mijitu inayotakiwa kusoma mikataba jamani! cha kushangaza haijui hata si kutafsiri tu hata kuelewa katiba!
DAMN
DAMN
Rev. Kishoka
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 7, 2006
- 4,526
- 1,540
Hivyo hii ni wazi kuwa Katiba ya Tanzania bado inaendelea kuwa ina makosa makubwa na hakuna uwiano wa kimadaraka na ni rahisi ya Chama chechote au mtu yeyeote anayepata madaraka au kuwa Chama tawala kujifanyia mambo anavyotaka.
Kama tulisema tumeanziasha mfumo mpya wa kidemokrasia wa kisasa mwaka 1992 kwa kuruhusu vyama vingi, kwa nini hatukubadilisha katiba nzima ili kulipa Bunge na Mahakama mpya mamlakana nguu mpya za kikatiba na si kubadili kifungu au kipengele kilichosema sasa kuwa na vyama vingi ni Ruksa?
Maana kama tunadhania na kutaraji kuwa ni Vyama pekee vyene uwezo wa kukosoa au kusahihisha makosa ya vyama vingine au hata kulinda na kutetea Mtanzania na haki zake za katiba, basi tumekosea sana!
Kama tunadhani kuwa Mahakama kazi yake ni kupiga mihuri kuazimia na bunge nalo ni kupiga kura kuazimia na ni Serikali pekee yenye uwezo kutunga Sheria na hakuna mwingine aliye na mamlaka au uwezo wa kuchambua Sheria hata kuzitunga, basi hakuna maana ya kuwa na mfumo wa Kidemokrasia!
Kama tulisema tumeanziasha mfumo mpya wa kidemokrasia wa kisasa mwaka 1992 kwa kuruhusu vyama vingi, kwa nini hatukubadilisha katiba nzima ili kulipa Bunge na Mahakama mpya mamlakana nguu mpya za kikatiba na si kubadili kifungu au kipengele kilichosema sasa kuwa na vyama vingi ni Ruksa?
Maana kama tunadhania na kutaraji kuwa ni Vyama pekee vyene uwezo wa kukosoa au kusahihisha makosa ya vyama vingine au hata kulinda na kutetea Mtanzania na haki zake za katiba, basi tumekosea sana!
Kama tunadhani kuwa Mahakama kazi yake ni kupiga mihuri kuazimia na bunge nalo ni kupiga kura kuazimia na ni Serikali pekee yenye uwezo kutunga Sheria na hakuna mwingine aliye na mamlaka au uwezo wa kuchambua Sheria hata kuzitunga, basi hakuna maana ya kuwa na mfumo wa Kidemokrasia!
BAK
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 11, 2007
- 124,790
- 288,165
INDEPENDENT CANDIDACY:High Court has no mandate, says AG (Only CCM has a mandate to this important issue) 😕
Attorney General Frederick Mwita Werema
By Bernard James
No court in Tanzania has the power to invalidate any provision of the Constitution, Deputy Attorney General George Masaju said yesterday.He made the remarks before seven judges hearing the States appeal against the High Courts decision allowing independent candidates to contest elections.
Mr Masaju caused laughter when he told the bench chaired by Chief Justice Augustino Ramadhani that a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Constitution of Tanzania was not justiciable (subject to trial in a court of law).
The Court of Appeal yesterday began hearing an appeal in which the State is challenging the declaration by the High Court in 2006 that amendments made to the Constitution to bar private candidates from contesting elections were unconstitutional.
The court proceeded to declare that it was lawful for independent candidates to contest the presidency and parliamentary seats alongside aspirants nominated by political parties.
It said the amendments were unnecessary and unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right of citizens to seek elective posts either as party members or as private candidates.
The court further declared the amendments unconstitutional and contrary to international covenants to which Tanzania is party.
Mr Masaju sought to discredit the High Courts verdict yesterday.
We do not have a court with the power to adjudicate on the constitutionality of the Constitution, he said.
Mr Justice January Msofe, one of the judges hearing the appeal, wanted to know whether he meant even the High Court, which now has the power to adjudicate on the matter and invalidate any section of the Constitution.
But Masaju firmly replied, There is no such court. This matter is not justiciable.
Mr Justice Msofe: So what was Article 108 (of the Constitution) enacted for? And where shall a person wishing to seek remedy against any provision of the Constitution go to?
Mr Masaju: One can seek remedy in any other forum, but not in a court of law. One can even take his or her complaint to an MP, but no court has the power to invalidate any provision of the Constitution.
Mr Justice Msofe: But the court has been vested with powers to handle the constitutional petition under Article 30 (3) of the Constitution.
The Article states that, Any person alleging that any provision in this part of this Chapter or in any law concerning his rights or duty owed to him, has been, is being, or is likely to be violated by any person anywhere in the United Republic may institute proceedings for redress in the High Court.
When asked to read out the Article, Mr Masaju was adamant, saying: The petition has no forum to be heard. Even the original that challenged the provisions of the constitution barring private candidates to contest election was improperly before the court.
Mr Masaju had a tough time when the bench sought an answer as to why he was seeking nullification of the 2006 court decision while he was of the view that even the Court of Appeal had no powers to sit and adjudicate on the matter.
The panel wanted to know why he had bothered to come to the Court of Appeal to seek nullification of the High Court decision while he believed that no court in Tanzania had the power to handle the matter.
In the appeal, the State argues that the High Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction when it heard the petition filed by Rev Christopher Mtikila in 2005, which sought to nullify the amendment that barred private candidates.
In another ground of appeal, the State feels that the High Court wrongly assumed legislative powers in declaring unconstitutional some articles of the Constitution and it erred in subjecting the Constitution to international instruments.
But Mr Mtikilas lawyers, Mr Richard Rweyongeza and Mr Mpale Mpoki, asked the Court of Appeal to dismiss the grounds as baseless.
They said in declaring the provisions of the Constitution unconstitutional, the court exercised powers conferred on it by Article 30 (5) of the Constitution to declare the amendments unconstitutional and direct on what should be done.
The Article gives the High Court powers to decide to afford the government an opportunity to rectify a defect found in the law or action within a specified period when it happens that any law enacted or action taken by the government abrogates any of the basic rights, freedom and duties set in articles 12 and 29 of the Constitution.
On ground that the High Court erred in nullifying provisions of the Constitution, Mr Rweyongeza submitted that the court acted so because the Constitution gave the Judiciary the power to safeguard all human rights.
Once you take his power away from the Judiciary, the foundations of the Constitution itself will collapse, he said.
He said the Constitution had set limits and circumstances under article 7(2) on matters the court could adjudicate.
Attorney General Frederick Mwita Werema
By Bernard James
No court in Tanzania has the power to invalidate any provision of the Constitution, Deputy Attorney General George Masaju said yesterday.He made the remarks before seven judges hearing the States appeal against the High Courts decision allowing independent candidates to contest elections.
Mr Masaju caused laughter when he told the bench chaired by Chief Justice Augustino Ramadhani that a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Constitution of Tanzania was not justiciable (subject to trial in a court of law).
The Court of Appeal yesterday began hearing an appeal in which the State is challenging the declaration by the High Court in 2006 that amendments made to the Constitution to bar private candidates from contesting elections were unconstitutional.
The court proceeded to declare that it was lawful for independent candidates to contest the presidency and parliamentary seats alongside aspirants nominated by political parties.
It said the amendments were unnecessary and unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right of citizens to seek elective posts either as party members or as private candidates.
The court further declared the amendments unconstitutional and contrary to international covenants to which Tanzania is party.
Mr Masaju sought to discredit the High Courts verdict yesterday.
We do not have a court with the power to adjudicate on the constitutionality of the Constitution, he said.
Mr Justice January Msofe, one of the judges hearing the appeal, wanted to know whether he meant even the High Court, which now has the power to adjudicate on the matter and invalidate any section of the Constitution.
But Masaju firmly replied, There is no such court. This matter is not justiciable.
Mr Justice Msofe: So what was Article 108 (of the Constitution) enacted for? And where shall a person wishing to seek remedy against any provision of the Constitution go to?
Mr Masaju: One can seek remedy in any other forum, but not in a court of law. One can even take his or her complaint to an MP, but no court has the power to invalidate any provision of the Constitution.
Mr Justice Msofe: But the court has been vested with powers to handle the constitutional petition under Article 30 (3) of the Constitution.
The Article states that, Any person alleging that any provision in this part of this Chapter or in any law concerning his rights or duty owed to him, has been, is being, or is likely to be violated by any person anywhere in the United Republic may institute proceedings for redress in the High Court.
When asked to read out the Article, Mr Masaju was adamant, saying: The petition has no forum to be heard. Even the original that challenged the provisions of the constitution barring private candidates to contest election was improperly before the court.
Mr Masaju had a tough time when the bench sought an answer as to why he was seeking nullification of the 2006 court decision while he was of the view that even the Court of Appeal had no powers to sit and adjudicate on the matter.
The panel wanted to know why he had bothered to come to the Court of Appeal to seek nullification of the High Court decision while he believed that no court in Tanzania had the power to handle the matter.
In the appeal, the State argues that the High Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction when it heard the petition filed by Rev Christopher Mtikila in 2005, which sought to nullify the amendment that barred private candidates.
In another ground of appeal, the State feels that the High Court wrongly assumed legislative powers in declaring unconstitutional some articles of the Constitution and it erred in subjecting the Constitution to international instruments.
But Mr Mtikilas lawyers, Mr Richard Rweyongeza and Mr Mpale Mpoki, asked the Court of Appeal to dismiss the grounds as baseless.
They said in declaring the provisions of the Constitution unconstitutional, the court exercised powers conferred on it by Article 30 (5) of the Constitution to declare the amendments unconstitutional and direct on what should be done.
The Article gives the High Court powers to decide to afford the government an opportunity to rectify a defect found in the law or action within a specified period when it happens that any law enacted or action taken by the government abrogates any of the basic rights, freedom and duties set in articles 12 and 29 of the Constitution.
On ground that the High Court erred in nullifying provisions of the Constitution, Mr Rweyongeza submitted that the court acted so because the Constitution gave the Judiciary the power to safeguard all human rights.
Once you take his power away from the Judiciary, the foundations of the Constitution itself will collapse, he said.
He said the Constitution had set limits and circumstances under article 7(2) on matters the court could adjudicate.
Kinyambiss
JF-Expert Member
- Dec 2, 2007
- 1,374
- 73
The Deputy Attorney General is a blithering idiot in my opinion. Sijui alisomaga wapi, hawa watu wengine wanakuwaga sijui wanasoma kwa uchawi..lol. How can the Deputy AG really not know which court in the country has the role of Supremacy over Constitutional matters.. HE ddnt even know that the Hight Court of Tanzania is the Union High COurt.. Idiota..
Oxlade-Chamberlain
JF-Expert Member
- May 26, 2009
- 8,635
- 2,205
hili swala la mgombea binafsi ccm wanaogopana wenyewe kwa wenyewe mie nadhani.hawaaminiani hata kidogo ndio maana wanapigana sana kuzuia mgombea binafsi kwani wote washajichotea hela za kutosha kwahio wanajua kuna wengine wanaweza kutoka ccm na kwenda kugombania kivyao.
sidhani kama wanaogopa mtu ambaye hayuko kwenye system bado kwani kama hivyo wangewaogopa hata wapinzani.
sidhani kama wanaogopa mtu ambaye hayuko kwenye system bado kwani kama hivyo wangewaogopa hata wapinzani.
BAK
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 11, 2007
- 124,790
- 288,165
Imeandikwa na Shadrack Sagati; Tarehe: 8th April 2010 @ 23:59
Habari Leo
JOPO la majaji saba wa Mahakama ya Rufaa Tanzania limembana Naibu Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali, George Masaju, kuhusu suala la mgombea binafsi.
Majaji hao jana walimtaka Masaju awaeleze ni mahakama ipi yenye mamlaka ya kusikiliza shauri hilo.
Masaju alisema, Katiba ni suala la Muungano; hivyo yenye mamlaka ya kusikiliza shauri hilo ni Mahakama Kuu ya Muungano na si ya Tanzania Bara, ambayo ilijipa jukumu ambalo si lake.
Hoja hiyo iliwafanya majaji wamuulize maswali mengi wakitaka aoneshe mahali ilipo Mahakama Kuu ya Muungano yenye hadhi ya kusikiliza shauri hilo.
Lakini akiendelea kutetea hoja yake, Masaju aligeuka na kusema suala la Katiba ni la Muungano hivyo uamuzi wake si wa Mahakama bali ni lazima ufanywe na Bunge na uungwe mkono na theluthi mbili ya wabunge kutoka Bara na Visiwani.
"Huu ndiyo utaratibu na si mahakama kukifuta au kukirekebisha kifungu cha Katiba," alisema Masaju.
Alisema kilichofanywa na Mahakama Kuu, ni kujitwisha jukumu la Bunge.
Alisema kama kuna upungufu kwenye Katiba, mlalamikaji hapaswi kwenda mahakamani, bali kwenye asasi zisizokuwa za Serikali au kumwambia mbunge wake aliwasilishe bungeni.
Kesi hiyo inasikilizwa na majaji saba wa Mahakama ya Rufaa Tanzania; Jaji Mkuu Augustino Ramadhani, Eusebio Munuo, Januari Msofe, Nathania Kimaro, Mbarouk Salim, Benard Luanda na Sauda Mjasiri.
Kutokana na hoja ya Masaju, Jaji Luanda aliuliza: "Hivi hilo unalodai kuwa Mahakama Kuu haina mamlaka ya kusikiliza kesi hii, ulilisema wakati kesi yenu iko kwenye ngazi ile? Maana mngelisema Mahakama Kuu ingetoa uamuzi kama ina mamlaka hayo au la.
Masaju: Unajua siku hizi wale jamaa wa Mahakama Kuu hawataki mambo ya objection (pingamizi), lakini ninachosisitiza hapa ni kwamba masuala ya Muungano ni lazima yapate theluthi mbili ya wabunge.
Msofe: Ni mahakama gani yenye mamlaka ya kushughulikia ibara ya 30 (3) ya Katiba?
Masaju: Hakuna mahakama yenye uwezo wa kusikiliza suala hilo kwani ni la Muungano, hivyo linatakiwa liachiwe Bunge lenyewe.
Luanda: Lakini kuna Mahakama Kuu ya Muungano kwenye ibara ya 108 ya Katiba? Wewe ni Naibu Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali, twambie hiyo mahakama iko wapi?
Masaju: Ndiyo hiyo Mahakama Kuu iliyosikiliza shauri hili, lakini haina mamlaka kama ilivyo Mahakama Kuu ya Zanzibar.
Luanda: Kama hata ile ya Zanzibar haina mamlaka, je hiyo ya Muungano sasa iko wapi?
Masaju: Ndiyo hii inayoshughulikia masuala ya Bara (kicheko).
Ramadhani: Katiba ni suala la Muungano, kwa hiyo hata marekebisho ya kifungu cha Katiba nayo yanahitaji idadi ya theluthi mbili ya wabunge?
Masaju: Kama ni mambo yanayohusu Muungano, ni lazima idadi hiyo ya wabunge ipige kura.
Ramadhani: Kwa maneno yako, ina maana ibara ya 98 ya Katiba haina maana yoyote?
Masaju: Ina maana.
Ramadhani: Lakini umesema Katiba ni suala la Muungano, hivyo Mahakama Kuu na zile za chini hazina mamlaka ya kusikiliza suala la Muungano, sawa?
Masaju: (Kimya).
Luanda: kwa hiyo kuna tatizo, mnasema ile Mahakama ni ya Muungano wakati ni ya Bara!
Masaju: (Kimya).
Luanda: Twambie ni mahakama gani ingesikiliza hilo shauri.
Masaju: Nimesema mahakama ile haina mamlaka hayo, kwani hilo ni suala la Katiba.
Luanda: Hii ni hatari sana … sasa twambie Mahakama Kuu ya Bara ni ipi?
Masaju: Ni ile iliyosikiliza kesi hii.
Luanda: Inaitwaje?
Masaju: Mahakama Kuu ya Bara (kicheko).
Luanda: Mahakama Kuu ya Muungano iko wapi?
Masaju: Haipo.
Msofe: Ingesikilizwa na mahakama gani hii kesi?
Masaju: Kwa kuwa mahakama hiyo haipo ingekwenda bungeni au kwenye forum (jukwaa) yoyote ile.
Msofe: Kama kuna raia analalamika haki yake imekiukwa kwenye Katiba, aende wapi?
Masaju: Aende kwenye forum au amwambie mbunge wake. (mhhhhh! Wabunge wenyewe wa CCM walioweka maslahi ya CCM mbele kuliko yale ya nchi)
Msofe: Ina maana mambo ya Katiba hayatakiwi hata kujadiliwa mahakamani?
Masaju: (Kimya).
Ramadhani: Kwa hiyo suala lote hili si la kimahakama bali ni la Bunge na hakuna mahakama yenye mamlaka ya kuisikiliza? Kwa hiyo na sisi hapa hatuna mamlaka hayo?
Masaju: Mnayo kwani hii iko ngazi ya rufaa.
Ramadhani: Kwa nini tuwe na mamlaka hayo, hiyo kesi itakuwa imeanza kutoka wapi?
Masaju: Hii ni ya Muungano, ndiyo maana ina mamlaka hayo.
Mbarouk: Lakini Katiba imesema mtu anaruhusiwa kwenda mahakamani kupinga kile anachoona kinakiuka haki yake kwenye Katiba.
Masaju: Hilo ni kwenye kesi nyingine na si suala la Katiba.
Ramadhani: Sijakuelewa ila nimekusikia (kicheko).
Kuhusu hoja kama majaji wa Mahakama Kuu walikosea kukifuta kifungu cha katiba ambacho waliona kinakiuka haki za binadamu, Masaju alisisitiza kuwa hakuwa na jukumu hilo.
Msofe: Lakini sasa hiki ndicho walichofanya majaji kwa kuzingatia kifungu 30 (3) cha Katiba, hivi wakisema kifungu fulani ni kinyume cha Katiba ina maana hakuilinda Katiba?
Masaju: Ndiyo hapo, ndipo nasema mahakama ilikosea.
Luanda: Kuandika Katiba kuna misingi yake, je kama Mahakama ikiona misingi hiyo ilikiukwa na hiki ndicho kilichoko hapa kortini, ni kosa Mahakama kusema kifungu hiki hakifai?
Masaju: Waandishi lazima wazingatie misingi na hawatakiwi kuivunja.
Luanda: Je wakikiuka misingi hiyo?
Masaju: Yatafanyika marekebisho bungeni na si mahakamani.
Msofe: Hoja hapa si mhimili mmoja kuingilia mwingine, bali mahakama inasema ina mamlaka chini ya ibara ya 30 (3), wana mamlaka ya kusema kifungu fulani kwenye Katiba kina upungufu, je Katiba haiwapi mamlaka hayo?
Masaju: Kinawapa lakini si warekebishe Katiba.
Ramadhani: Ikitokea vifungu viwili vinagongana, nini kitatokea?
Masaju: Huwezi kutumia kifungu kimoja kuharibu Katiba yote, mahakama inatakiwa itumie vifungu vingine kuamua jambo hilo.
Ramadhani: kama kuna kifungu kinasema huwezi kulazimishwa kujiunga na chama chochote, lakini pia kuna kifungu kinasema huwezi kuwa mbunge hadi uwe katika chama, hivi hapo huoni kama kuna mgongano?
Masaju: Hakuna mgongano, kwani mambo ya siasa ni ya hiyari, hakuna anayelazimishwa kujiunga na vyama vya siasa.
Msofe: Lile swali la Jaji Mkuu hukulijibu vizuri, ikitokea vifungu viwili kwenye Katiba vinagongana, inakuwaje?
Masaju: Kama unashughulika na sheria zingine unakwenda kortini, lakini kama ni Katiba huwezi kwenda kortini.
Msofe: Kama kuna kifungu kinaonekana ni batili mahakama hairuhusiwi kushauri?
Masaju: Hakuna kifungu batili kwenye Katiba.
Msofe: Mahakama haina mamlaka ya kushauri Bunge lirekebishe hiyo?
Masaju: Inaweza kutoa maoni, haiwezi kunyamaza.
Wakili anayemwakilisha Mchungaji Christopher Mtikila, Richard Rweyongeza, aliiomba Mahakama ikubaliane na uamuzi wa Mahakama Kuu kwani ilitoa uamuzi wa haki. Kesi hii inaendelea leo
Habari Leo
JOPO la majaji saba wa Mahakama ya Rufaa Tanzania limembana Naibu Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali, George Masaju, kuhusu suala la mgombea binafsi.
Majaji hao jana walimtaka Masaju awaeleze ni mahakama ipi yenye mamlaka ya kusikiliza shauri hilo.
Masaju alisema, Katiba ni suala la Muungano; hivyo yenye mamlaka ya kusikiliza shauri hilo ni Mahakama Kuu ya Muungano na si ya Tanzania Bara, ambayo ilijipa jukumu ambalo si lake.
Hoja hiyo iliwafanya majaji wamuulize maswali mengi wakitaka aoneshe mahali ilipo Mahakama Kuu ya Muungano yenye hadhi ya kusikiliza shauri hilo.
Lakini akiendelea kutetea hoja yake, Masaju aligeuka na kusema suala la Katiba ni la Muungano hivyo uamuzi wake si wa Mahakama bali ni lazima ufanywe na Bunge na uungwe mkono na theluthi mbili ya wabunge kutoka Bara na Visiwani.
"Huu ndiyo utaratibu na si mahakama kukifuta au kukirekebisha kifungu cha Katiba," alisema Masaju.
Alisema kilichofanywa na Mahakama Kuu, ni kujitwisha jukumu la Bunge.
Alisema kama kuna upungufu kwenye Katiba, mlalamikaji hapaswi kwenda mahakamani, bali kwenye asasi zisizokuwa za Serikali au kumwambia mbunge wake aliwasilishe bungeni.
Kesi hiyo inasikilizwa na majaji saba wa Mahakama ya Rufaa Tanzania; Jaji Mkuu Augustino Ramadhani, Eusebio Munuo, Januari Msofe, Nathania Kimaro, Mbarouk Salim, Benard Luanda na Sauda Mjasiri.
Kutokana na hoja ya Masaju, Jaji Luanda aliuliza: "Hivi hilo unalodai kuwa Mahakama Kuu haina mamlaka ya kusikiliza kesi hii, ulilisema wakati kesi yenu iko kwenye ngazi ile? Maana mngelisema Mahakama Kuu ingetoa uamuzi kama ina mamlaka hayo au la.
Masaju: Unajua siku hizi wale jamaa wa Mahakama Kuu hawataki mambo ya objection (pingamizi), lakini ninachosisitiza hapa ni kwamba masuala ya Muungano ni lazima yapate theluthi mbili ya wabunge.
Msofe: Ni mahakama gani yenye mamlaka ya kushughulikia ibara ya 30 (3) ya Katiba?
Masaju: Hakuna mahakama yenye uwezo wa kusikiliza suala hilo kwani ni la Muungano, hivyo linatakiwa liachiwe Bunge lenyewe.
Luanda: Lakini kuna Mahakama Kuu ya Muungano kwenye ibara ya 108 ya Katiba? Wewe ni Naibu Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali, twambie hiyo mahakama iko wapi?
Masaju: Ndiyo hiyo Mahakama Kuu iliyosikiliza shauri hili, lakini haina mamlaka kama ilivyo Mahakama Kuu ya Zanzibar.
Luanda: Kama hata ile ya Zanzibar haina mamlaka, je hiyo ya Muungano sasa iko wapi?
Masaju: Ndiyo hii inayoshughulikia masuala ya Bara (kicheko).
Ramadhani: Katiba ni suala la Muungano, kwa hiyo hata marekebisho ya kifungu cha Katiba nayo yanahitaji idadi ya theluthi mbili ya wabunge?
Masaju: Kama ni mambo yanayohusu Muungano, ni lazima idadi hiyo ya wabunge ipige kura.
Ramadhani: Kwa maneno yako, ina maana ibara ya 98 ya Katiba haina maana yoyote?
Masaju: Ina maana.
Ramadhani: Lakini umesema Katiba ni suala la Muungano, hivyo Mahakama Kuu na zile za chini hazina mamlaka ya kusikiliza suala la Muungano, sawa?
Masaju: (Kimya).
Luanda: kwa hiyo kuna tatizo, mnasema ile Mahakama ni ya Muungano wakati ni ya Bara!
Masaju: (Kimya).
Luanda: Twambie ni mahakama gani ingesikiliza hilo shauri.
Masaju: Nimesema mahakama ile haina mamlaka hayo, kwani hilo ni suala la Katiba.
Luanda: Hii ni hatari sana … sasa twambie Mahakama Kuu ya Bara ni ipi?
Masaju: Ni ile iliyosikiliza kesi hii.
Luanda: Inaitwaje?
Masaju: Mahakama Kuu ya Bara (kicheko).
Luanda: Mahakama Kuu ya Muungano iko wapi?
Masaju: Haipo.
Msofe: Ingesikilizwa na mahakama gani hii kesi?
Masaju: Kwa kuwa mahakama hiyo haipo ingekwenda bungeni au kwenye forum (jukwaa) yoyote ile.
Msofe: Kama kuna raia analalamika haki yake imekiukwa kwenye Katiba, aende wapi?
Masaju: Aende kwenye forum au amwambie mbunge wake. (mhhhhh! Wabunge wenyewe wa CCM walioweka maslahi ya CCM mbele kuliko yale ya nchi)
Msofe: Ina maana mambo ya Katiba hayatakiwi hata kujadiliwa mahakamani?
Masaju: (Kimya).
Ramadhani: Kwa hiyo suala lote hili si la kimahakama bali ni la Bunge na hakuna mahakama yenye mamlaka ya kuisikiliza? Kwa hiyo na sisi hapa hatuna mamlaka hayo?
Masaju: Mnayo kwani hii iko ngazi ya rufaa.
Ramadhani: Kwa nini tuwe na mamlaka hayo, hiyo kesi itakuwa imeanza kutoka wapi?
Masaju: Hii ni ya Muungano, ndiyo maana ina mamlaka hayo.
Mbarouk: Lakini Katiba imesema mtu anaruhusiwa kwenda mahakamani kupinga kile anachoona kinakiuka haki yake kwenye Katiba.
Masaju: Hilo ni kwenye kesi nyingine na si suala la Katiba.
Ramadhani: Sijakuelewa ila nimekusikia (kicheko).
Kuhusu hoja kama majaji wa Mahakama Kuu walikosea kukifuta kifungu cha katiba ambacho waliona kinakiuka haki za binadamu, Masaju alisisitiza kuwa hakuwa na jukumu hilo.
Msofe: Lakini sasa hiki ndicho walichofanya majaji kwa kuzingatia kifungu 30 (3) cha Katiba, hivi wakisema kifungu fulani ni kinyume cha Katiba ina maana hakuilinda Katiba?
Masaju: Ndiyo hapo, ndipo nasema mahakama ilikosea.
Luanda: Kuandika Katiba kuna misingi yake, je kama Mahakama ikiona misingi hiyo ilikiukwa na hiki ndicho kilichoko hapa kortini, ni kosa Mahakama kusema kifungu hiki hakifai?
Masaju: Waandishi lazima wazingatie misingi na hawatakiwi kuivunja.
Luanda: Je wakikiuka misingi hiyo?
Masaju: Yatafanyika marekebisho bungeni na si mahakamani.
Msofe: Hoja hapa si mhimili mmoja kuingilia mwingine, bali mahakama inasema ina mamlaka chini ya ibara ya 30 (3), wana mamlaka ya kusema kifungu fulani kwenye Katiba kina upungufu, je Katiba haiwapi mamlaka hayo?
Masaju: Kinawapa lakini si warekebishe Katiba.
Ramadhani: Ikitokea vifungu viwili vinagongana, nini kitatokea?
Masaju: Huwezi kutumia kifungu kimoja kuharibu Katiba yote, mahakama inatakiwa itumie vifungu vingine kuamua jambo hilo.
Ramadhani: kama kuna kifungu kinasema huwezi kulazimishwa kujiunga na chama chochote, lakini pia kuna kifungu kinasema huwezi kuwa mbunge hadi uwe katika chama, hivi hapo huoni kama kuna mgongano?
Masaju: Hakuna mgongano, kwani mambo ya siasa ni ya hiyari, hakuna anayelazimishwa kujiunga na vyama vya siasa.
Msofe: Lile swali la Jaji Mkuu hukulijibu vizuri, ikitokea vifungu viwili kwenye Katiba vinagongana, inakuwaje?
Masaju: Kama unashughulika na sheria zingine unakwenda kortini, lakini kama ni Katiba huwezi kwenda kortini.
Msofe: Kama kuna kifungu kinaonekana ni batili mahakama hairuhusiwi kushauri?
Masaju: Hakuna kifungu batili kwenye Katiba.
Msofe: Mahakama haina mamlaka ya kushauri Bunge lirekebishe hiyo?
Masaju: Inaweza kutoa maoni, haiwezi kunyamaza.
Wakili anayemwakilisha Mchungaji Christopher Mtikila, Richard Rweyongeza, aliiomba Mahakama ikubaliane na uamuzi wa Mahakama Kuu kwani ilitoa uamuzi wa haki. Kesi hii inaendelea leo
Kaa la Moto
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 24, 2008
- 7,904
- 1,064
Huyu Masaju naona anajivunjia heshima kutetea ujinga huu. Wanasheria wengine bwana? hata aoni aibu kwamba anasimama mbele ya wasomi wenzake wa sheria kusema mambo ya kipuuzi tuuuuuu? hii yote kulinda serikali batri.
BAK
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 11, 2007
- 124,790
- 288,165
Yaaaani! We acha tu anaongea upupu mtupu na kutetea kitu ambacho hakistahili kutetewa.