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.
Binafsi nnaona mpiga kura haki anayo, ila kwa kesi ya lema, ni hoja gani mpiga kura anakuja nazo?
Mkuu msome vizuri Prof Shivji yeye anaelezea tafsiri za sheria wewe umejikita zaidi kwenye ushabiki wa kisiasa.
Kwa wale wanaofikiri kwamba huenda wale wanaCCM watatu watakata rufaa tena (kutaka jopo kubwa zaidi la Majaji rufaa) kupitia hukumu hiyo wasiwe na hofu kwani rufaa haitafanikiwa.
Hoja hiyo ya 'locus standi' ya warufaa -- yaani iwapo wana haki ya kufungua kesi kupinga matokeo ya uchaguzi halikuwa pekee ambalo mawakili wa lema waliliweka katika rufaa yao.
Hoja za kutokuwepo CD za uthibitisho wa matusi ya Lema kwa BB, au jaji wa Mahakama Kuu kukataa ushahidi wa wanachadema kwa sababu ulikuwa wa kishabiki lakini hapo hapo kukubali ule ushahidi wa wanaCCM kwa mfano hayakuguswa kabisa katika ruling ya jaji Kimaro na wenzake na hilo na mengine yanaweza kuibuliwa.
Kumbukeni Rufaa ambayo Azim dewji alimfungulia Dr kabaorou mwaka 1994/95 (yaani baada ya Kaborou kushinda kesi aliyomfungulia Premji katika Mahakama Kuu kupinga ushindi wake katika byelection ya Kigoma Mjini) Jaji Lugakingira (nadhani) aliibua suala la uraia wa Azim Premji kwani aliona suala hilo halikufafanuliwa vizuri (au tuseme lilikuwa wrongly decided upon) katika rufaa ya awali ya Dr Kaborou kupinga matokeo ya ubunge uliompa ubunge Premji.
I beg to differ. Parliament should always make law and the courts should interpret the law.
We should respect and observe the fundamental constitutional principles to avoid abuse.
Lord Denning was perhaps the greatest law-making judge of the last century and the most controversial.
His achievement was to shape the common law according to his own highly individual vision of society.
He stepped down from the House of Lords to a much more influential post - Master of the Rolls so that he could do his thing without interference.
During his 20 years as Master of the Rolls, he could choose his own cases and the judges who were to sit with him. So on most issues, he effectively had the last word.
But in seeking justice Lord Denning, considered himself entitled to get round - or even change - any rule of law that stood in his way. There was no need to wait for legislation.
"Parliament does it too late," he argued. "It may take years and years before a statute can be passed to amend a bad law.
"The judge ... should make the law correspond with the justice that the case requires."
Although he saw himself as champion of the underdog - the ordinary citizens, the consumers, the deserted wives - he supported employers against trade unions, education authorities against students, and the Home Office against immigrants.
But his 1982 book "What Next in the Law" was his downfall. In it, he seemed to suggest some black people were unsuitable to serve on juries.
Lord Denning's prejudices demonstrate the risks of letting one man dispense justice.
BBC News | UK | Denning: A life of law
1. Mahakama inaweza kutunga sheria kutokana na hukumu zake. Wakina shivji wakasome hukumu za judge Demining wa uingereza jinsi hukumu zake zilivhotengeneza sheria nyingi za jumuia ya madola. Kama kulikuwapo na hukumu ya 1980 inamaana haiwezi kutenguliwa tena?
2. Mahakama haikusema wapiga kura hawana haki ila hicho walichofungulia kesi ndio kina ulakini. Kumbuka wale wanaharakati waliofungua kesi ya kugomea malipo ya dowans mahakama ilisema wazi kuwa hawana haki kwa vile sio party to the contract. Lakini hao wanaharakati na watanzania wote ni walipa kodi na tuna haki wao hawakuliona hilo? Mahakama zimeweka utaratibu kuwa lazima uwe muadhirika au ufungue kesi kwa niaba ya mwadhirika kwa ridhaa yake. Au mtu ukiona jirani amewekewa X unaweza kwenda mahakamani kupinga kwa vile utapoteza jirani? Mwadhirika wa kesi hakwenda mahakamani na kesi ya kutukana kama ni kweli wangepaswa wapeleke polisi ili jamhuri imfungulie shitaka la jinai. Kama mwanachi anaweza kufungua mashitaka ya jinai basi hata wanachi wafungue kesi za watuhumiwa wa epa si wote ni waadhirika na tuna haki na kodi zetu?
Shivji kaamua kuchafua hewa kwa makusudi kabisa na hii ni dhambi ambayo itamrudia tu.
Hii ni 2012 awareness ya binadamu inazidi kuongezeka kila sekunde inayopita.
Tutarajie kuna madudu mengi kutoka kwa watu wenye majina kama Shivji.
(Kutoka gazeti la mwananchi)
MWANAZUONI aliyebobea katika sheria, Profesa Issa Shivji na Rais wa Chama cha Wanasheria Tanganyika (TLS), Francis Stolla wamekosoa hukumu ya Mahakama ya Rufani, iliyomrejesha bungeni, Mbunge wa Arusha Mjini (Chadema), Godbless Lema.
Wakizungumza kwa nyakati tofauti juzi, wanasheria hao walisema hukumu hiyo iliyotolewa na majaji watatu wakiongozwa na Nathalia Kimaro, Salum Massati na Bernard Luanda, inapingana na sheria.
Hata hivyo, mmoja wa mawakili wa Lema, Method Kimomogoro amepinga madai hayo akisema wanaoipinga pengine hawajapata nafasi ya kuliangalia kwa undani suala la haki ya mpiga kura kupinga matokeo mahakamani.
Profesa Shivji kwa upande wake alieleza kushangazwa na maelezo ya Mahakama ya Rufani kuwa mpiga kura hana haki ya kufungua kesi ya kupinga matokeo ya uchaguzi na kusema hiyo ni sawa na kutunga sheria mpya na si kutafsiri zilizopo.
Alisema Sheria ya Bunge ya Uchaguzi, Katiba ya nchi na Mahakama, vinampa haki mpiga kura kufungua kesi kupinga matokeo ya uchaguzi.....