Prof. Shivji apinga sehemu ya hukumu ya kesi ya Lema

Kiranga said:

Let's start this thought experiment.

Say kuna mtu mwanachama wa FUC, mkazi na mpiga kura wa Chake Chake Pemba. Alikuwa na access na high level strategic meetings za FUC huko Chake Chake Pemba.

Katika hizo strategic meetings, candidate wa ubunge wa FUC Muleba katoa mchongo wa kushinda kwa kuhonga wahesabu kura wote strategy limeshapangwa, documents zipo, ma bank transfers yapo. Piga ua galagaza lazima ashinde ubunge Muleba ili aende ku introduce sheria fulani to an unsuspecting parliament ili kuruhusu takeover fulani katika biashara ya mafuta kwa WaIran. Huyu mtu ana documents za alliance na hawa waIran wamuendeshe kama remote control, awapatie parliamentary access to information.

Uchaguzi unapita, huyu mgombea wa FUC anashinda Muleba, kwa rushwa. Ushahidi wote huyu mjumbe wa FUC wa Chake Chake anao, anaweza kuuwakilisha mahakamani.

Nafsi yake inamsuta kwani anaelewa ubunge hawajashinda kihalali, na zaidi ya hapo mbunge hana nia nzuri na nchi kuna a conspiracy inaandaliwa.

Huyu mjumbe wa FUC asiwezeshwe kuchallenge ubunge wa huyu mbunge wa Muleba kwa sababu tu si mpiga kura wa Muleba?

Au si mgombea aliyeshindwa Muleba?

This scenario may read like a hyperbole from an overly excited mind, but it is actually very plausible under our current conditions.

Click to expand...

Sasa hapo huyo mbunge atakuwa ametenda kosa la jinai na anatakiwa kuripotiwa kwenye vyombo husika ili vichukue hatua stahili. Time does not run against the State, so he can be reported hata baada ya uchahuzi kufanyika.

Obviously, mtu ata-argue kuwa vyombo husika navyo vinanuka rushwa na havitaweza kumshughulia huyo mbunge ipasavyo. Hata hivyo bado sioni sababu za msingi za kumbebesha mpiga kura mmoja mzigo wote wa kwenda kumshtaki huyo mbunge tena kwa gharama zake mwenyewe, unless haki yake binafsi (not haki za majority au wananchi wote) ziko hatarini.

Kama mpaka kuna watu wanataka kumtumia huyo mbunge kupata parliamentary access to information, then the relevant authorities should take over badala ya kumwanchia a single person in an omnibus to pursue such an expensive litigation alone. Hata kama huyo mpiha kura akishnda kesi, sana sana mbunge atapoteza ubunge and that will be it, pamoja na kwamba s/he preparing to commit a very serious criminal offence.

Sidhani kama hapo mpiga kura atakuwa anatendewa haki. Kifungu husika kinamruhusu pia Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali kufungua kesi kama ana sababu za kisheria na ushahidi kuwa kulikuwa na irregularities. Kwa nini mtu kama huyu asichukue hiyo kesi ikizingatiwa kuwa ana resources za kutosha kuendesha hiyo kesi kulinganisha na huyo Mpemba?

Kama nilivyosema kwenye thread nyingine, irregularities in elections should not be regarded as a private wrong which an individual must come forward to remedy, but as attempts to wreck the machinery of representative government and as an attack upon national institutions which the nation (not just certain individuals) should concern itself to repel.

Election petitions brought by individual voters are both inadequate and inappropriate method of controlling fraud, corruption and irregularities in elections. For electoral policy to be policed by what are in effect private civil law actions brought at the expense of the litigant (plaintiff) cannot be acceptable. Tena kwa issue kama hii unamweka mpiga kura at risk. Anaweza kufa hata kabla kesi haijaisha.

If there is a public interest, then the relevant authorities should take over badala ya kumbebesha mzigo mtu mmoja on based on a simple ground that ananayo haki ya kushtaki hata kama haki yake kama mpiga kura haijaathirika.

EMT,

Huo mfano ni kianzio tu cha thought experiment kama nilivyosema. Na fact kwamba umeingia kwenye purely criminal scenario ambayo imezidi electoral politics inachanganya.

Nisingependa vitu viwili vichanganywe. Vitu viwili hivi ni, kimoja, kumpa haki mwananchi wa kawaida kufungua mashtaka kingine ni kumpa mzigo wa kufungua mashtaka mwananchi. The two are not the same. Wewe naona unaandika kama hutaki mwananchi wa kawaida apewe mzigo huu, which is well and good. Lakini uzuri wa kumpa mwananchi uhuru ni kuacha uamuzi uwe kwa mwananchi mwenyewe. Kama ni mzigo, na mwananchi hana resources, ataamua mwenyewe kuacha kama vile wananchi wengi tulivyo na haki nyingi za ku sue lakini hatuzitumii.

Mimi ningependa kuona mahakama inaruhusu mwananchi yeyote kufungua kesi for starters, hata kama threshold ya proof of injury inakuwa a bit on the high side kuondoa frivolous suits. My passing reading of the ruling sees that there is a sorta contradictory provision for this, a contradiction because in the zeal of hammerring the case with a Scottish passion for refutation straight out of a Fabian society debate rebuttal, the ruling made some overreaching remerks that could be interpreted to mean that elections are not matters of public interest, the prominence of this portion is what has most people up in arms against the ruling, specifically this portion of it.

Sioni umuhimu wa kumnyima mwananchi haki ya kushtaki kama bar of proof of injury itakuwa set high enough.

You kill two birds with one stone, you eliminate the possibility of not giving some people their right and kill any hope at every Juma, John or Maganga to clog the system with frivolous and politically motivated suits.

What's wrong with that? Especially if the court system could be set to easily and quickly dismiss all the cases where the high bar of proof of injury is not met?

I believe in the power of the individual and that the individual should be afforded any help to realize his constitutional rights to explore options at exploiting his rightful destiny without resorting to the guileful processes of the institutions.

I want the Rev Mtikilas of this world to be able to break ground in charting a new level of responsibility and accountability. I can't trust the institutions as they have shown themselves to be unreliable.

Kiranga nakubaliana na wewe on some points. Kweli uhuru wa kufungua au kutofungua kesi uwe wa mwananchi mwenyewe. Lakini kwa demokrasia yetu, baadhi ya watu kwa sababu zao binafsi wanawatumia hawa wapiga kura wa kawaida kuwafungulia kesi wale walioshinda kwenye chaguzi. Unless this is first addressed it is likely that such right will be abused.

Halafu wanaofunguliwa kesi ni wale ambao wanaonekana kama walikuwa ni genuine winners kwenye hizo changuzi. Nakumbuka Mzee Makamba aliwaagiza viongozi husika wa CCM kwenye majimbo ambayo CCM ilishndwa wawafungulie kesi mahakamani wabunge wa upinzani walioshinda. Sasa hapo sidhani kama mwana CCM ataweza kutumia uhuru wake kushtaki. Halafu wale ambao walishinda chaguzi kwa mizengwe hasa kutoka CCM hawafunguliwi kesi na wapiga kura ambao kimsingi haki yao imeadhiriwa.

Individuals are powerful but only when they have been empowered kujiamulia mambo mambo wao wenyewe. Vinginevyo, watatumika na watu wachache kwa faida za hao wachache tuu. Kuna faida na hasara za kuwapa wapiga kura haki ya kushtaki hata kama haki zao hazijawa affected. Kunaweza kukawa na safeguards za ku-address hizo hasara kama kuweka security for costs mahakamani but still wengine wanaweza kuathirika.

Kwa mfano, kuna recent case ya copyright, jamaa alimshtaki JK Rowling (mwandishi wa vitabu vya Harry Porter) and a publishing company for copyright infringement. Judge akamwambia kuwa since this is going to be an expensive litigation na hali yake kiuchumi ilikuwa siyo nzuri, basi aweke security for costs mahakamani ili akishndwa kesi, then hiyo pesa itatumika kama fidia kwa washtakiwa.

The claimant decided to drop his case kwa sababu hakuwa na pesa. Of course baadae ilikuja kugundulika kuwa kuna makampuni ya Kimarekani yalikuwa nyuma yake na alipoyaambia kuwa mahakama inataka security for costs yakasepa. Inaonekana pia kuwa kama angeshindwa kesi hayo makampuni yangemwacha solemba kama CCM ilivyowaacha solemba hao waliomfungulia kesi Lema.

Lakini kama angekuwa ni genuine claimant na JK Rowling amekopi kitabu change safeguards such as security for costs ingemfanya ashindwe kabisa kutetea haki yake.

Kweli hakuna umuhimu wa kumnyima mpiga kura haki kushtaki hasa pale ambapo haki yake imeadhiriwa. Lakini kama huyo mpiga kura hana uwezo wa ku-exercise hiyo haki itabakia tuu kwenye makaratasi au inaweza kuwa abused na watu wachache for their own personal interests.

Wapiga wengi hata hawajui haki zao kama wapiga kura. Wanapurukushwa na kutumiwa tuu na vyama vya siasa au watu fulani kufanya mambo ambayo at the end of the day wala hayahusiani kabisa na haki zao kama wapiga kura bali for the interests of certain individuals. Waelimishwe kwanza.

EMT,

Let's deal with the fundaments here.That the individual first and foremost is afforded rights. Whether the logistics of exercising those rights are practical or not is not a fundamental issue and therefore should not pose any consequences on the decision of granting those rights.

When the constitution/ international charters say something like "Everyone has a right to education" or employment etc, the realisation is that the practical logistics may not be in tune with that political will, but that does not stop the establishment of the fundaments. Once you establish the fundaments, the logistic details could be worked out. If we worry about the logistics before establishing the fundaments we would not get out of bed on any given day. Too many things to worry about!

The democratic process and it's auspices of the rule of law can be messy and convoluted, let's not kid ourselves that these matters are to be solved easily. In recognizing this, whenever rights are threatened due to the paradoxical seesaw of on the one hand ensuring rights are upheld and on the other the system is not abused , let's not choose to infringe rights in a "mtego wa panya unasao waliokusudiwa na wasiokusudiwa" style.Let's strive for a precision that will provide for some semblance of checks against abuse without infringing the rights of Tanzanians with genuine grievances.

This is why I stressed the importance of having a very high standard to establish that the individuals presenting a case are far and above the run of the mill political machinations.

Mfano wako wa kesi dhidi ya JK Rowling unaonyesha ni jinsi gani wenzetu wameweza kuwa na system ambayo haimnyimi individual haki yake ya kufungua kesi, lakini pia imeweka chujio zuri kutaka watu wasio na conviction/ seriousness/ funds kuhusu kesi washindwe kuendelea. Kama cause ni genuine enough na watu wanaona watu hawawezi kushindwa kupata means. Kama cause ni suspect na dubious hata kama una back ya makampuni/ watu wenye pesa system ikichongwa vizuri tutaona tu.

Ninachokataa ni hii habari ya kusema blanketly kwamba "mpiga kura hana haki ya kufungua kesi..." eti kwa sababu tu kuna abuses, kama kuna abuses let's deal with the loopholes for abuses, we don't want to deny by fiat genuine cases because of a mere chance of abuse.

If we follow that logic we would ban voting for fear of voting fraud!

Give this proviso to individuals, set a high bar for establishing validity and a quick way of throwing out the political bags of guile, and chances are, if the system is watertight, these cases of trickery will not even make it to court because the savvy lawyers will advise against it based on the high threshold for establishing validity.

Kiranga,

May be the Court of Appeal interpreted the provision strictly so that the Parliament could wake up and legislate on rules with higher standards which should be met before a voter challenges an election by way of a petition?

EMT said:

Kiranga,

May be the Court of Appeal interpreted the provision strictly so that the Parliament could wake up and legislate on rules with higher standards which should be met before a voter challenges an election by way of a petition?

Click to expand...

The travails of Westminster type checks and balances. The judiciary could hardly directly advise the legislature on the matter. Lest the advisement carries the potentiality for a constitutional crisis to ensue. Or could it?

I wish there was a more formal and transparent way of doing this. Is the judiciary being overly politically correct by not stating some of these minutiae but important aspects in the rulings? Are they implied in legalese contradictory seesawing twists or even stated plainly and passing over some of our heads? I thought I saw a similar implication that nobody raised here. I may need to read the ruling again, with more focus on this. Or are these out of scope as they would initiate the above mentioned crisis? The current political climate and the level of debate at least in some quarters is none the helpful, not to mention way less than inspiring, considering the requisite sobriety.

Trouble is, you need people with integrity to set the bar high - and let's face it we don't have too many of those-, especially if that will be against their parties' interests and by extension possibly their own (MPs) self interests. I am thinking of something along the alleged Makamba effort to flood the courts with all kinds of dubious challenges wherever CCM did not emerge victorious for example. A more stringent standard of validity would not be in CCM's interests at least in these cases, and as long as the trend of parliamentary/ electoral politics is unclear, eventhough the present CCM majority would make a more stringent standard advantageous to CCM (in that the oppositions litigation would need to pass a higher bar of validity test), they may want to hold that overlitigious card up their sleeve just in case the tide of change takes hold faster than projected.

On the other hand, most of the current MPs bribed and connived their way up there anyway, so you would think the establishment of some more stringent standards regarding validity, far and above the more legitimate objective of saving the court system from unnecesary clogging- would be in their interest in a poetic justice in the larger analysis from their selfish within the objective oriented by simply their motivation to serve their skins.

I doubt most MPs dissect these matters in all these dimensionalities.

Candid Scope said:

Shivja anaijadili sheria ilivyo lakini hakuangalia sheria hiyo katika uchaguzi huo wanaopinga matokea waliathiriwaje na madai yao kitu ambacho mahakama imeegemea kutoa hukumu yake. Hao wapiga kura hawakutukanwa na Lema sasa wanasimamaje kudai haki mahakamani wakati aliyetukanwa hakulalamika wala kuwa mmoja wapo wa mashahidi. Pamoja na ugwiji wa sheria katika hali kachemka sana.

Click to expand...

pokea'' like'' mkubwa kuna watu wanafikiri sheria ni sayansi, sheria ni typical art a straight lip game of opinions and not facts.