Suala la Mkaguzi Mkuu wa Hesabu za Serikali (CAG) na Vipengele kadhaa vya Kisheria

Rais amefuata taratibu;

Maamuzi yake yametokana na tafsiri sahihi ya sheria.

Kwakuwa kaongozwa na sheria katika kufanya maamuzi, ni sahihi kusema kuwa amefuata taratibu.

Mimi nataka tu kujua kuwa, wanaodai rais kavunja katiba, wanadai hivyo kwa mujibu gani?

Wanasadiki au?
 
Mtaalamu wa sheria hebu tusaidia kifungu cha 40 (i) cha Katiba inasema hivi:
40.-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Article, any person who holds office as President shall be eligible for re-election to that office. (2) No person shall be elected more than twice to hold the office of President.

Hapo "SHALL" inamaana kama ulivyoeleza hapo juu??!!
[/QUOTE]Look at you guys... hapa tunazungumzia sheria kuhusu CAG na sio kuhusu rais!! Nyie watu vipi?! Ndo reference gani ya sheria inayofanya hivyo?!

Kama mnadhani reference kisheria ndo inakuwa hivyo, kwenye Ibara hiyo hiyo ya 40, Ibara ndogo ya pili inasema:-
No person shall be elected more than twice to hold the office of President.
Je, unataka kusema kuna option ya kuweza kuchaguliwa zaidi ya mara mbili?!

Isitoshe, hiyo ibara ya 40 (1) inasema:-
Subject to the other provisions of this Article, any person who
holds office as President shall be eligible for re-election to that office.
As a Bush Lawyer, my legal opinion suggests hiyo ibara imekosewa, na ilitakiwa isomeke kama:-
Subject to the other provisions of this Constitution, any person whoholds office as President shall be eligible for re-election to that office.
Hiyo ni kutokana na ukweli kwamba, Katiba (sio named article) imetaja sifa za mtu kugombea urais, kwahiyo wakati anapokuwa na hiyo sifa ya re-election, inabidi sifa hiyo isi-violate vifungu vingine vya katiba!!

Kwa mfano, Katiba yetu kwa sasa, kama sikosei Ibara ya 38, inataka mtu anayegombea urais apendekezwe na chama cha kisiasa! Kwahiyo Article 40(1) ingesema "subject to the provisions of this constitution", hapo hiyo re-election ingefanya reference kwenye vifungu vingine vya katiba na sio ibara!!

All in all, mjadala ni uteuzi wa CAG na sio uchaguzi wa Rais ambao sifa na utaratibu wa uchaguzi/uteuzi wao ni tofauti!
 
Hukubaliani na Shivji kwa vile ni mgumu kuelewa. Miaka mitano inaacha lope holes kwa Rais kumuundia tume ya kumchunguza ili aondolewe in case inabidi iwe hivyo kwa sababu zilizotajwa kwenye sharia husika. Hivyo ndivyo ilivyo na tunajadili kutokana na katiba ilivyo kwa sasa ukisema kwanini isingekuwa vipi sijui, ndo haiko ivyo sasa
 

zipo sababu nyingi
1. Moja inawezekana kabisa CAG yeye mwenyewe baada ya kazi ngumu ya miaka mitano, kiroho safi tu yeye mwenyewe akataka kupumzika.

2.Au Inawezekana kwa nia njema kabisa na za manufaa kwa taifa zikawepo sababu za CAG kung'olewa kwa mfano tabia mbaya na mwenendo mbaya au na ufanisi basi ikatakiwa asiweze kupewa term ya pili, lakini kwa Sababu ofisi ya CAG inahitaji independence ya hali ya juu si busara kumpa Mteuzi mamlaka ya kumfire CAG kirahisi kwa hiyo inaweka option ya kumuondoa after 5 years lakini kumuondoa kwenye kuwe na sababu genuine ndiyo maana akapewa option ya kutumia hiyo ibara ya 144(3) ambayo ni ngumu ngumu kidogo kumng'oa CAG lakini kama zipo sababu za msingi na evidence basi anang'oka tu.

Hii ndiyo hekima ya miaka mitano mitano
 
Nope!

Shall is a modal verb which expresses a necessity.

It means the same thing across the board.

If it doesn’t, show me, with authority, where it means totally something else.
Your interpretation is based on general English use but not a legal definition/interpretation of our own laws! Our INTERPRETATION OF LAWS ACT says:-

Frankly speaking, the word is confusing if there's no legal definition/interpretation, but we have one! It's from this confusion that's why other countries including the United States replace the word SHALL with MUST, but we haven't!

They decided to drop the word SHALL because when the law schools teach SHALL is mandatory, in the common use it's not mandatory!
 
Inatambulika huo mwaka wa kuongeza anayeuidhinisha ni Mh.Rais.
Lazima kuna kipengele kinampa nguvu Mh.Rais kuendelea kumpa ziada hiyo CAG au kuteua mwingine.
 

Na wewe unakubaliana naye kwa sababu huelewi.
 
We will miss you Proff Assad.
You are loved by many.
 

Zaidi soma:

[/QUOTE]
 
Huyu kweli ni mwanasheria aliyebobea kwenye sheria na anachambua kisheria akiwa ametulia!
 
Usiniambie SOMA threads ambazo nimeshasoma, na ndio maana mwanzoni tu mwa thread yangu nimezungumzia hizo threads zingine!

Toa hoja yako kupitia hizo threads zingine!
 
Mbona kuna nguvu nyingi sana inatumika kutetea hili swala? Mwenzio anakwambia ata mwaka mmoja anakuondoa.

Tukubali tu Magufuli anapenda kuvunja katiba.
Katiba ipi mkuu? Kaisome vizuri Katiba ibara ya 144 na Sheria ya Ukaguzi kifungu Na. 6 ukiwa umetulia neno kwa neno pia unaweza kusoma ibara ya 36 ya Katiba then urudi hapa useme amevunja ibara ipi? Usiwe na mhemuko mkuu kama unataka kuelewa!
 
zipo sababu nyingi
1. Moja inawezekana kabisa CAG yeye mwenyewe baada ya kazi ngumu ya miaka mitano, kiroho safi tu yeye mwenyewe akataka kupumzika.

Kwa hiyo CAG akishateuliwa haruhusiwi kabisa kuondoka kwenye hiyo nafasi kabla ya kipindi cha miaka mitano? Vipi kama baada ya miaka miwili akaamua kuachia ngazi? Hawezi tu kusema kuwa ‘nimechoka na nimeamua kujiuzulu’ kabla ya miaka mitano kuisha?


So let me get this straight, hapa ni wewe unasadiki, siyo?

Au kuna sehemu umeyatoa haya maelezo?
 
Mkuu ule utaratibu ni wa wazi sio wa kificho. Majaji wa ndani na nje wanahusika. Sote tungejua

Wa wazi kivipi? Ni kwamba kunakuwa na matangazo magazetini, redioni, runingani?

Na proceedings zake zinakuwa open to the public au?
 
Kwa nini unasema Katiba iko sikent kwenye kumuondoa CAG wakati ime stipulate soecific conditions za CAG kuondolewa, zikiwa ni ugonjwa, umri au impeachment tribunal?

Mbona vioengele viko wazi na vime stipulate very specifically? Kwa maneno yenye ckear logic kama unless.
 
Look at you guys... hapa tunazungumzia sheria kuhusu CAG na sio kuhusu rais!! Nyie watu vipi?! Ndo reference gani ya sheria inayofanya hivyo?!

Kama mnadhani reference kisheria ndo inakuwa hivyo, kwenye Ibara hiyo hiyo ya 40, Ibara ndogo ya pili inasema:-Je, unataka kusema kuna option ya kuweza kuchaguliwa zaidi ya mara mbili?!

Isitoshe, hiyo ibara ya 40 (1) inasema:-As a Bush Lawyer, my legal opinion suggests hiyo ibara imekosewa, na ilitakiwa isomeke kama:-Hiyo ni kutokana na ukweli kwamba, Katiba (sio named article) imetaja sifa za mtu kugombea urais, kwahiyo wakati anapokuwa na hiyo sifa ya re-election, inabidi sifa hiyo isi-violate vifungu vingine vya katiba!!

Kwa mfano, Katiba yetu kwa sasa, kama sikosei Ibara ya 38, inataka mtu anayegombea urais apendekezwe na chama cha kisiasa! Kwahiyo Article 40(1) ingesema "subject to the provisions of this constitution", hapo hiyo re-election ingefanya reference kwenye vifungu vingine vya katiba na sio ibara!!

All in all, mjadala ni uteuzi wa CAG na sio uchaguzi wa Rais ambao sifa na utaratibu wa uchaguzi/uteuzi wao ni tofauti!
[/QUOTE]
Umeshasema kuwa wewe ni bush lawyer then sitegemei ukaweza ku interpretate Katiba ya Sheria vizuri. Hii ni professional ya watu mkuu!
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…