S. S. Phares
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 27, 2006
- 2,138
- 85
Wakili Masaju anafanya kazi yake, anajivunjia heshima vipi?
Hii kesi inaongeza afya kwenye mchakato wa demokrasia yetu, wacha wanasheria wasuguane. Kuna mengi ya kujifunza hapa.
Mgombea binafsi Tanzania: Tatizo ni nini?
Mgombea binafsi Tanzania: Tatizo ni nini?
- Thread starter Chambusiso
- Start date
Wakili Masaju anafanya kazi yake, anajivunjia heshima vipi?
Hii kesi inaongeza afya kwenye mchakato wa demokrasia yetu, wacha wanasheria wasuguane. Kuna mengi ya kujifunza hapa.
BAK
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 11, 2007
- 124,790
- 288,165
Legal experts divided on independent candidates
By Njonanje Samwel
10th April 2010
Chief Justice Augustine Ramadhani.
Friends of the Court were yesterday divided on whether or not the ruling of the High Court of Tanzania on the petition that paved the way for constitutional amendments allowing the participation of independent candidates in the countrys election violated the Constitution.
Led by Chief Justice Augustine Ramadhani, University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM) law Professors - Palamagamba Kabudi and Jwan Mwaikusa, and Zanzibar Public Prosecutor, Othman Masoud they gave their opinions at the Court of Appeal in Dar es Salaam on the second and last day of hearing of states appeal filed by the government protesting the decision taken by the High Court of Tanzania.
Chief Justice Ramadhani requested the Zanzibars DPP and the law professors to be friends of Court so that they would give their views as to whether or not the High Courts decision to amend the provision in the constitution was a violation of the Constitution.
The first to give his opinion was the Zanzibar DPP Othman Masoud who said the High Court had powers to translate section 30, clause 5 of the Constitution and provide directives to carry out amendments given that sections of the countrys Constitution were contravening each other.
He, however, said the High Court had no legal mandate to declare that certain sections in the Constitution were null and void and that it was against the Constitution.
Prof Kabudi for his part said that the court had no powers to invalidate a section in the constitution because one section was contravening the other unless it acted under the directives of the Constitution.
Giving his opinion, Prof Mwaikusa said that the court had powers of hearing the private candidate row because the dispute involved citizens being denied their constitutional right.
He said according to section 107A (1) of the countrys constitution, the court was the highest authority among three state pillars, commissioned with the duty of giving justice in the United Republic of Tanzania.
Due to that, he said, the court had all rights to nullify laws and acts that denied a person, his or her right to participate in elections.
Ones right is not given by the constitutionthe constitution only protects the rights to be observed, said Prof Mwaikusa.
As the friends of court were giving their views, National Electoral Commission Director, Rajabu Kiravu also told a panel of judges who presided over the hearing that any decision to allow private candidates as ruled by the High Court would gravely affect this years general elections scheduled for October.
In your invitation letter, your honour, Chief Justice, you requested us to come here and give our views as to whether the court has powers to nullify a section in the constitution and not whether private candidates be allowed or not. If being asked, I would have answered that the court has no such powers of invalidating a section in the constitution for reasons that it contravenes with the other, unless it is under directives of the constitution itself.
He said, the disputed part, section 21 (1) of the constitution did not invalidate other sections of the constitution.
Deputy Attorney General George Masaju had earlier told the Court of Appeal that no court in Tanzania could rule on the petition that led to the constitutional amendments allowing the participation of independent candidates in the countrys elections.
Masaju made the remarks in an oral submission before a panel of seven Appeal Court judges, led by Chief Justice Augustino Ramadhani. The other members of the panel are Eusebia Munuo, January Msoffe, Natalia Kimaro, Mbaruku Mbaruku, Bernard Luande and Sauda Mjasiri.
According to the deputy AG, when provisions in the Constitution were in conflict with one another, not even the Court of Appeals could legally rule on the matter.
He said that the courts in the country had jurisdiction only if it was an ordinary law that is in conflict with the Constitution.
The deputy AG argued that the respondent in the appeal, Rev Christopher Mtikila who felt that the constitution was violating his constitutional rights to contest for the countrys presidency or a parliamentary seat as a private candidate, should have been advised to seek the intervention of either the National Assembly or non-governmental organisations dealing with human rights.
Masaju went on to argue that the May 5, 2006 High Court decision to amend a provision in the Constitution to make it accommodate the respondents prayer was a clear violation of the Constitution.
The only authority the said court had over the matter was to give advice and not to amend the constitution, he said, adding: It was wrong for the High Court to amend the provision in the constitution because that was tantamount to destroying it, while it was supposed to protect and defend it.
In view of that, he said, the High Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction in entertaining the petition, and asked the Court of Appeal to declare the decision null and void because it ran against provisions in the Constitution.
Responding, Counsel Richard Rweyongeza and Mpale Mpoki for the respondent submitted that the appeal filed by the AG was totally and completely without merits.
Rweyongeza said the High Court had not usurped powers to formulate laws as suggested by the deputy AG but it used its powers under subsection (v) of Article 30 of the Constitution to amend a provision it found to have discrepancies.
The High court has powers accorded to it by the Constitution, he said, adding that subsection (ii) of Article 7 of the constitution was very clear on the provisions in respect of which the court could not conduct a trial.
There must be express provisions of the law for that to take place and not merely by implying that the High Court has no jurisdiction.
The Attorney General has lodged an appeal petitioning the High Court ruling to the effect that independent candidates could legally participate in all levels of elections in the country.
Chief Justice Agustino Ramadhani said ruling on the matter would be made at a date to be determined later.
SOURCE: THE GUARDIAN
By Njonanje Samwel
10th April 2010
Chief Justice Augustine Ramadhani.
Friends of the Court were yesterday divided on whether or not the ruling of the High Court of Tanzania on the petition that paved the way for constitutional amendments allowing the participation of independent candidates in the countrys election violated the Constitution.
Led by Chief Justice Augustine Ramadhani, University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM) law Professors - Palamagamba Kabudi and Jwan Mwaikusa, and Zanzibar Public Prosecutor, Othman Masoud they gave their opinions at the Court of Appeal in Dar es Salaam on the second and last day of hearing of states appeal filed by the government protesting the decision taken by the High Court of Tanzania.
Chief Justice Ramadhani requested the Zanzibars DPP and the law professors to be friends of Court so that they would give their views as to whether or not the High Courts decision to amend the provision in the constitution was a violation of the Constitution.
The first to give his opinion was the Zanzibar DPP Othman Masoud who said the High Court had powers to translate section 30, clause 5 of the Constitution and provide directives to carry out amendments given that sections of the countrys Constitution were contravening each other.
He, however, said the High Court had no legal mandate to declare that certain sections in the Constitution were null and void and that it was against the Constitution.
Prof Kabudi for his part said that the court had no powers to invalidate a section in the constitution because one section was contravening the other unless it acted under the directives of the Constitution.
Giving his opinion, Prof Mwaikusa said that the court had powers of hearing the private candidate row because the dispute involved citizens being denied their constitutional right.
He said according to section 107A (1) of the countrys constitution, the court was the highest authority among three state pillars, commissioned with the duty of giving justice in the United Republic of Tanzania.
Due to that, he said, the court had all rights to nullify laws and acts that denied a person, his or her right to participate in elections.
Ones right is not given by the constitutionthe constitution only protects the rights to be observed, said Prof Mwaikusa.
As the friends of court were giving their views, National Electoral Commission Director, Rajabu Kiravu also told a panel of judges who presided over the hearing that any decision to allow private candidates as ruled by the High Court would gravely affect this years general elections scheduled for October.
In your invitation letter, your honour, Chief Justice, you requested us to come here and give our views as to whether the court has powers to nullify a section in the constitution and not whether private candidates be allowed or not. If being asked, I would have answered that the court has no such powers of invalidating a section in the constitution for reasons that it contravenes with the other, unless it is under directives of the constitution itself.
He said, the disputed part, section 21 (1) of the constitution did not invalidate other sections of the constitution.
Deputy Attorney General George Masaju had earlier told the Court of Appeal that no court in Tanzania could rule on the petition that led to the constitutional amendments allowing the participation of independent candidates in the countrys elections.
Masaju made the remarks in an oral submission before a panel of seven Appeal Court judges, led by Chief Justice Augustino Ramadhani. The other members of the panel are Eusebia Munuo, January Msoffe, Natalia Kimaro, Mbaruku Mbaruku, Bernard Luande and Sauda Mjasiri.
According to the deputy AG, when provisions in the Constitution were in conflict with one another, not even the Court of Appeals could legally rule on the matter.
He said that the courts in the country had jurisdiction only if it was an ordinary law that is in conflict with the Constitution.
The deputy AG argued that the respondent in the appeal, Rev Christopher Mtikila who felt that the constitution was violating his constitutional rights to contest for the countrys presidency or a parliamentary seat as a private candidate, should have been advised to seek the intervention of either the National Assembly or non-governmental organisations dealing with human rights.
Masaju went on to argue that the May 5, 2006 High Court decision to amend a provision in the Constitution to make it accommodate the respondents prayer was a clear violation of the Constitution.
The only authority the said court had over the matter was to give advice and not to amend the constitution, he said, adding: It was wrong for the High Court to amend the provision in the constitution because that was tantamount to destroying it, while it was supposed to protect and defend it.
In view of that, he said, the High Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction in entertaining the petition, and asked the Court of Appeal to declare the decision null and void because it ran against provisions in the Constitution.
Responding, Counsel Richard Rweyongeza and Mpale Mpoki for the respondent submitted that the appeal filed by the AG was totally and completely without merits.
Rweyongeza said the High Court had not usurped powers to formulate laws as suggested by the deputy AG but it used its powers under subsection (v) of Article 30 of the Constitution to amend a provision it found to have discrepancies.
The High court has powers accorded to it by the Constitution, he said, adding that subsection (ii) of Article 7 of the constitution was very clear on the provisions in respect of which the court could not conduct a trial.
There must be express provisions of the law for that to take place and not merely by implying that the High Court has no jurisdiction.
The Attorney General has lodged an appeal petitioning the High Court ruling to the effect that independent candidates could legally participate in all levels of elections in the country.
Chief Justice Agustino Ramadhani said ruling on the matter would be made at a date to be determined later.
SOURCE: THE GUARDIAN
KipimaPembe
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 5, 2007
- 1,285
- 698
Kugombea Uongozi ni haki ya kiraia na ni haki ya binadamu ambayo lazima ilindwe. Kujiunga na vyama vya siasa ni suala la hiari. Huwezi kulazimishwa kujiunga na vyama vya siasa ili upate haki fulani ambayo ni haki ya msingi. Hili liko wazi mno huhitaji kuwa umefunua mavitabu kibao ya sheria kujua hilo.
Haki ya msingi ya binadamu inalindwa na katiba, haitolewi na katiba. Inapopokwa kwa njia yoyote ile lazima mtu uende mahakamani, si bungeni au kwa mbunge wako kama anavyo-argue mwanasheria wa serikali (ni ajabu kama huyu ni msomi wa sheria).
Bunge ni chombo cha kutunga sheria. Si kutoa haki. Unapohisi umepokwa haki yako na kipengere fulani cha katiba ukaenda bungeni utatumia utaratibu gani ulioainishwa kisheria?? Yaani bunge hilo hilo lililotunga sheria ambayo imenyang'anya haki, ndo ulipelekee malalamiko? Na utaratibu wa watu kupeleka malalamiko yao bungeni uko wapi? Bunge limetawaliwa na vyama vya siasa na ni mali ya vyama vya siasa kutokana na kipengere cha katiba kinachozuia mtu ambaye si mwanachama wa chama kugombea ubunge au uongozi wowote (unaopatikana kupitia kupiga kura).
Hii ina maana kuwa Bunge ki-ukweli ni Bunge la vyama vya siasa. Kupeleka malalamiko yako bungeni mwanasheria mkuu wa serikali anashauri uongee na Mbunge wako! Ambaye kwa mujibu wa sheria ni lazima awe mwanachama wa chama fulani cha siasa. Hakuna utaratibu wala mfumo uliowekwa wa kuhakikisha kuwa madai ya haki yako yanatekelezwa na huyo mbunge wako ambaye kimsingi atafanya kazi zake kuangalia zaidi chama chake kina sema nini!
Ni jambo la kushangaza kuwa, Mtanzania ambaye haki yake ya kugombea uongozi imepokwa na bunge kwa kuweka sheria inayomlazimisha kuwa mwanachama wa taasisi za hiari, anashauriwa arudi huko bungeni kulalamika kwa utaratibu ambao haupo.
Mwenye haki iliyonyang'anywa lazima aende mahakamani kwani ndo kazi ya mahakama kutoa tafsiri. Mahakama inachofanya si kufuta kifungu cha katiba. Bali ni kutamka kuwa kifungu hicho hakifai kwa sababu kinapoka haki za msingi za raia. Kazi ya kukirekebisha au kukiondoa ni kazi ya yule aliyekiweka ambaye ni Bunge!
Sasa mwanasheria wa serikali anasema eti twende kulalamika kwa wabunge wetu ikiwa haki yetu ya kugombea uongozi imenyang'anywa?? Haya ni ya Firauni!!
Haki ya msingi ya binadamu inalindwa na katiba, haitolewi na katiba. Inapopokwa kwa njia yoyote ile lazima mtu uende mahakamani, si bungeni au kwa mbunge wako kama anavyo-argue mwanasheria wa serikali (ni ajabu kama huyu ni msomi wa sheria).
Bunge ni chombo cha kutunga sheria. Si kutoa haki. Unapohisi umepokwa haki yako na kipengere fulani cha katiba ukaenda bungeni utatumia utaratibu gani ulioainishwa kisheria?? Yaani bunge hilo hilo lililotunga sheria ambayo imenyang'anya haki, ndo ulipelekee malalamiko? Na utaratibu wa watu kupeleka malalamiko yao bungeni uko wapi? Bunge limetawaliwa na vyama vya siasa na ni mali ya vyama vya siasa kutokana na kipengere cha katiba kinachozuia mtu ambaye si mwanachama wa chama kugombea ubunge au uongozi wowote (unaopatikana kupitia kupiga kura).
Hii ina maana kuwa Bunge ki-ukweli ni Bunge la vyama vya siasa. Kupeleka malalamiko yako bungeni mwanasheria mkuu wa serikali anashauri uongee na Mbunge wako! Ambaye kwa mujibu wa sheria ni lazima awe mwanachama wa chama fulani cha siasa. Hakuna utaratibu wala mfumo uliowekwa wa kuhakikisha kuwa madai ya haki yako yanatekelezwa na huyo mbunge wako ambaye kimsingi atafanya kazi zake kuangalia zaidi chama chake kina sema nini!
Ni jambo la kushangaza kuwa, Mtanzania ambaye haki yake ya kugombea uongozi imepokwa na bunge kwa kuweka sheria inayomlazimisha kuwa mwanachama wa taasisi za hiari, anashauriwa arudi huko bungeni kulalamika kwa utaratibu ambao haupo.
Mwenye haki iliyonyang'anywa lazima aende mahakamani kwani ndo kazi ya mahakama kutoa tafsiri. Mahakama inachofanya si kufuta kifungu cha katiba. Bali ni kutamka kuwa kifungu hicho hakifai kwa sababu kinapoka haki za msingi za raia. Kazi ya kukirekebisha au kukiondoa ni kazi ya yule aliyekiweka ambaye ni Bunge!
Sasa mwanasheria wa serikali anasema eti twende kulalamika kwa wabunge wetu ikiwa haki yetu ya kugombea uongozi imenyang'anywa?? Haya ni ya Firauni!!
hivi hawa watu wanajua katiba? katiba iko kwa ajili ya kulinda haki za wananchi na kuwa na sheria inayokataza wagombea binafsi kwa tanzania ni kuwanyima haki almost 40 - 60% ya watu wote tanzania ( kwani idadi ya wanachama wa vyama ni kama 40% ya watanzania wote)
Mzee Mwanakijiji
Platinum Member
- Mar 10, 2006
- 33,771
- 41,027
Zimepita wiki kadhaa sasa tangu Mahakama ya Rufani ikae chini kusikiliza hoja mbalimbali juu ya masuala ya wagombe binafsi na hasa suala la nguvu za mahakama kutengua sheria au vipengele vya katiba. Ninaamini kabisa kuwa masuala yote mawili siyo magumu au mazito kisheria zaidi ya tatizo la kisiasa zaidi.
Hata hivyo, kwa sababu uamuzi huo wa mahakama unaosubiriwa unahusiana moja kwa moja na uchaguzi mkuu wa mwaka huu naamini kuchelewa kutolewa kwa hukumu hiyo kutababisha usumbufu au matatizo yasiyo ya lazima. Japo ninatambua umuhimu wa majaji kuweza kupitia na kushauriana vya kutosha kabla ya kufikia kutoa hukumu ninaamini maslahi ya taifa yanazidi sana suala la mchakato na taratibu. Ni muhimu Mahakama ya Rufani kuzingatia ukweli kuwa kwa kadiri wanavyozidi kuchelewesha kutoa hukumu ndivyo hivyo hivyo wanaathiri mipango ya vyama, watu binafsi, na serikali wanapojianda na ushiriki wa Uchaguzi Mkuu.
Vyovyote vile ilivyo ni muhiimu kwa Mahakama ya Rufani kutoa uamuzi wake mapema iwezekanavyo (ndani ya wiki japo moja kuanzia sasa) ili kama uamuzi wa mahakama hiyo wa 2005 utasimama basi watu, vyama na serikali vianze mchakato mara moja wa kuhakikisha maamuzi hayo ya mahakama yanatekelezwa bila kuathiri tarehe za uchaguzi.
Kwa vile huo ndio uamuzi kutoka mahakama ya juu kabisa nchini basi uamuzi wake unamaana kubwa siyo kwa ajili ya uchaguzi huu tu bali kwa maisha ya mbeleni ya kisiasa ya taifa letu.
Naomba nitoe wito kwa Mahakama kutoa uamuzi wake mara moja ili taifa lijue nini cha kufanya. Kama nilivyosema awali katika makala yangu iliyododosa haki za wagombea binafsi na uwezo wa mahakama kutengua sheria ninaamini sasa kama nilivyoamini wakati ule kuwa Mahakama ya Rufani itautetea uamuzi wa2005 kuruhusu wagombea binafsi na vile vile itasimamia haki yake ya kuhakikisha kuwa serikali haiwezi kufuta haki za wananchi au kuchezea Katiba kwa kisingizio kuwa hakuna chombo kinachoweza kufuta sheria ya kidhalimu au yenye kutishia haki za msingi za raia na wananchi.
Na kwa vile tunajua tayari serikali imeshaanza kuchukua maamuzi ya kukataa kuteleleza hukumu ya mahakama (rejea kauli za Marmo) au vyombo vyake kuacha kutekeleza wajibu wake wa kikatiba kwa sababu utaathiri CCM na serikali (rejea kauli ya Tendwa) bado ninatoa wito kuwa endapo serikali itakataa kutii uamuzi wa mahakama basi Jaji Mkuu na Majaji wote wa Mahakama ya Rufani watatakiwa kujiuzulu mara moja ili kumruhusu Rais kuteua majaji ambao watacheza filimbi ya serikali ikipigwa au watakaokuwa wanatabirika kutoa hukumu za kuiridhisha serikali. Hakuna eneo la katikati.
Hata hivyo, kwa sababu uamuzi huo wa mahakama unaosubiriwa unahusiana moja kwa moja na uchaguzi mkuu wa mwaka huu naamini kuchelewa kutolewa kwa hukumu hiyo kutababisha usumbufu au matatizo yasiyo ya lazima. Japo ninatambua umuhimu wa majaji kuweza kupitia na kushauriana vya kutosha kabla ya kufikia kutoa hukumu ninaamini maslahi ya taifa yanazidi sana suala la mchakato na taratibu. Ni muhimu Mahakama ya Rufani kuzingatia ukweli kuwa kwa kadiri wanavyozidi kuchelewesha kutoa hukumu ndivyo hivyo hivyo wanaathiri mipango ya vyama, watu binafsi, na serikali wanapojianda na ushiriki wa Uchaguzi Mkuu.
Vyovyote vile ilivyo ni muhiimu kwa Mahakama ya Rufani kutoa uamuzi wake mapema iwezekanavyo (ndani ya wiki japo moja kuanzia sasa) ili kama uamuzi wa mahakama hiyo wa 2005 utasimama basi watu, vyama na serikali vianze mchakato mara moja wa kuhakikisha maamuzi hayo ya mahakama yanatekelezwa bila kuathiri tarehe za uchaguzi.
Kwa vile huo ndio uamuzi kutoka mahakama ya juu kabisa nchini basi uamuzi wake unamaana kubwa siyo kwa ajili ya uchaguzi huu tu bali kwa maisha ya mbeleni ya kisiasa ya taifa letu.
Naomba nitoe wito kwa Mahakama kutoa uamuzi wake mara moja ili taifa lijue nini cha kufanya. Kama nilivyosema awali katika makala yangu iliyododosa haki za wagombea binafsi na uwezo wa mahakama kutengua sheria ninaamini sasa kama nilivyoamini wakati ule kuwa Mahakama ya Rufani itautetea uamuzi wa2005 kuruhusu wagombea binafsi na vile vile itasimamia haki yake ya kuhakikisha kuwa serikali haiwezi kufuta haki za wananchi au kuchezea Katiba kwa kisingizio kuwa hakuna chombo kinachoweza kufuta sheria ya kidhalimu au yenye kutishia haki za msingi za raia na wananchi.
Na kwa vile tunajua tayari serikali imeshaanza kuchukua maamuzi ya kukataa kuteleleza hukumu ya mahakama (rejea kauli za Marmo) au vyombo vyake kuacha kutekeleza wajibu wake wa kikatiba kwa sababu utaathiri CCM na serikali (rejea kauli ya Tendwa) bado ninatoa wito kuwa endapo serikali itakataa kutii uamuzi wa mahakama basi Jaji Mkuu na Majaji wote wa Mahakama ya Rufani watatakiwa kujiuzulu mara moja ili kumruhusu Rais kuteua majaji ambao watacheza filimbi ya serikali ikipigwa au watakaokuwa wanatabirika kutoa hukumu za kuiridhisha serikali. Hakuna eneo la katikati.
Mzee Mwanakijiji
Platinum Member
- Mar 10, 2006
- 33,771
- 41,027
I hope not, kwa sababu kama wenyewe wanavyosema "haki kucheleweshwa ni haki kunyimwa"..
Mzee Mwanakijiji
Platinum Member
- Mar 10, 2006
- 33,771
- 41,027
Pascal Mayalla
Platinum Member
- Sep 22, 2008
- 53,857
- 121,995
.
Usiwe na wasiwasi, japo siijui siku rasmi ya ktangazwa uamuzi, ninachojua ni uamuzi uliofikiwa unaosubiriwa kutangazwa.
Juzi Jaji Mkuu ameshauzungumzia uamuzi wa mahakama kuhusu hii hoja, amesema, makama Tanzania ziku huru na haziingiliwi na serikali kwa namna yoyote na kutolea mfano hii kesi ya Mgombea huru, kuwa mahakama haijaingiliwa kabisa.
Tafsiri ya kauli hii, ni kuwa mahakama itatoa uamuzi utaoitesa serikali, by inference, uamuzi wenyewe ni kukubali kuwa Mahakama Kuu, inao uwezo husika, hivyo serikali itekeleze uamuzi wa mahakama.
Ingekuwa serikali imekata rufaa kupinga uamuzi ule, makama ya rufaa ingetoa hukumu kukazia hukumu ile. Serikali haikupinga hukumu ya Mahakama Kuu, bali imechalenge uwezo wa Mahakama Kuu kutoa uamuzi juu ya kipengele cha katiba.
Kwa kifupi, hoja ya mgombea binafsi imepita!
Tusianza kushangilia kwanza mpaka itangazwe rasmi.
Pascal Mayalla
Platinum Member
- Sep 22, 2008
- 53,857
- 121,995
Usiwe na shaka na Jaji Mkuu, his last day in the office is 30th Dec, 2010. He has nothing to loose and he will hit'em hard!.
Albedo
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 24, 2008
- 5,558
- 1,456
Na iwe hivyo mkuu Pasco maana Serikali ya CCM haina aibu inaweza kusigina haki za msingi za Watu mchana kweupe kabisa
Pascal Mayalla
Platinum Member
- Sep 22, 2008
- 53,857
- 121,995
.
Kwenye hili la mgombea binafsi, hakuna mswale Mtume, ni haki tupu kwa kwenda mbele. Na hii ndio itakuwa the only legacy left behind Jaji Agustino Ramadhani. Atahakikisha anasimama kuhesabiwa pamoja na watenda haki wengine.
Mkuu mbona hapo umenichanganya, iweje Jaji amfurahishe rais halafu sisi tutumie mahakama ya Jaji huyohuyo kupinga yale rais anayoyataka (kufanyika kiini macho cha kumhalalishia tena 5 years?)
Mmmmhh haya.
Mzee Mwanakijiji
Platinum Member
- Mar 10, 2006
- 33,771
- 41,027