The Lema Verdict: Did the Court of Appeal encroach on litigation rights of a voter?

[Rutashubanyuma]

MBUNGE wa Arusha Mjini (Chadema), Godbless Lema

Kwa ufupi

Katika shauri hilo namba 84 la mwaka 1980 lililofunguliwa na William Bakari na mwenzake dhidi ya Mgonja na Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali (AG), Mahakama Kuu Tanzania iliamua kuwa, mpiga kura ana haki kufungua kesi mahakamani kupinga matokeo. Walalamikaji walishinda.

The Lema ruling by the Appeals Court has left me with many questions including whether the highest Court on the land has overstepped her mandate and reduced herself into a judicial activists/ role.

For politicians/ lawyers like Chadema - Lissu as long as the ends are alright the means can be tolerated something I find really disturbing and strategically erroneous; because, this decision has far reaching ramifications beyond the Lema status as member of the Augusta House.

The Court ruled that in election litigation case the rights of a voter to sue are curtailed only to voting rights but not to question the legitimacy of the election something I find it is another step backward in entrenchment of the rights of a voter well animated in the constitution.

In a specific case of USA election of 2000 between Al-Gore and George Bush following Florida disputed election, the voters were permitted on their own right to question the integrity of that election something here is now forbidden. At least for now.........

In democratic tenet of participatory democracy, voters are the employers of those who are voted in office. Hence, if those voted in office were elected contrary to the law it is up to voters and electoral losers to question in a court of law as meticulously stipulated in Article 26 (2) of the constitution.

But where Article 26 (2) of the constitution was not an issue in the Lema verdict, the Court deemed it fit to legislate from the Bench and attach extraneous words in that Article under the auspices of interpreting the constitution!

Issues that the Court had decided were not even subjects of dispute. Nowhere in the appellants' grounds of appeal did they question the evidence pertaining to the Respondents' status as Arusha constituent's voters but the Court saw it decorous to resolve a matter which was not before them. In fact the grounds of appeal clearly regarded the Respondents as registered voters of Arusha electoral constituent but the judges had different ideas.

This kind of comport is in conflict with the past precedents that were set by the Court. In a specific case of Attorney General v. Butambala (Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1991) the Appeals Court castigated the High Court of "ambulance chasing". The Court was miffed by the then Judge Mwalusanya for initiating issues which were not properly before him! In its own words this what the Appeals Court had said:-

"We are of the carefully considered opinion, for reasons we have endeavored to indicate, that the learned judge improperly raised the issue of constitutionality and that there was no legitimately permissible occasion to do so. This is enough to dispose the appeal in favour of the Attorney General who did not think he was drafted as a friend of the court............With respect, Mwalusanya, J, initiated his own cause and then sat on it as a judge. One may be tempted to think that he had made up his mind and so the whole exercise of bringing Mr. Butambala and the Attorney General on record and listening to their arguments was illusory. The approach was manifestly unjudicial and emphatically undesirable." End of quotation and emphasis is entirely mine.

If the Appellants had no problem with the status of Respondents as registered voters in Arusha constituent but questioned only whether had the right to challenge the result where did the justices come in to investigate whether the Respondents were really registered voters in the said constituent if it was not "ambulance chasing?"

The Court surpised me in particular when they faulted the display of evidence that has been in practice for generations! Where a litigant is represented by an advocate then it is up to the advocate to present the evidence on his/ her behalf. Now the Court is instructing us that that immemorial practice is an illegality without showing us how were the rights of appellants infringed since the appellants did not complain on that frontier!


The Court went on and declare that though elections are matters of huge public interest but voters' rights to petition are only limited to their voting rights but not to challenge the authenticity of the election!

What they said is that although voters elect their leaders but voters are not affected in anyway to the outcome of the election but the beneficiaries are those who subjected themselves to be elected! The quality of that democratic representation is it really not a direct and not remote public interest?

Where those elected are employed by the voters the Court saw that voters had a remote interest to the outcome of the election something I find odious, unfair and misleading.

Where the constitution has made it abundantly clear a voter can challenge an election outcome but the Court now has ruled those rights are constrained to a mere voting rights.

The real dilemma remains can voting rights exclude the outcome of the election?

We understand the Court was in immense pressure to assert her authority and imprint in the minds of the public at large that it was above political interference. However when the Court overstep her mandate like revoking voter's rights to litigation well encapsulated in our constitution leaves some of us gnashing with anger.

The Appeals Court has in many ways been in front-line to extinguish basic human rights like "independent candidates" and this ruling is just a confirmation that constitutional rights no matter how well written the Courts can legislate from the bench under the pretext of interpreting the constitution.

 

[zomba]

This is Africa.

 

[JokaKuu]

Rutashubanyuma,

..can u provide us with a copy of the ruling made by the Court of Appeals.

..I dont think the court ruled that voters have no rights to question the legitimacy of an election.

..Instead the court ruled that the alleged utterances that Lema made during the campaigns did not amount to anything that could have affected the voters or the election results.

..now, let me put it in Swahili: mahakama ilimhukumu Lema kwa kutoa maneno ya kashfa ambayo ilisemekana yaliwaathiri wapiga kura na matokeo ya uchaguzi.

 

[AshaDii]

Mkuu JokaKuu,

If you want to understand where Rutashubanyuma's insinuation on the matter is emitting from, go through the thread of this provided link - https://www.jamiiforums.com/jukwaa-...faa-ukishindwa-uchaguzi-shitaki-mwenyewe.html... In courtesy of EMT. For further information do read Nyani Ngabu 's 10[SUP]th [/SUP]post of the same thread.

 

[JokaKuu]

AshaDii, Rutashubanyuma, Nyani Ngabu,

..Thank u AshaDii.

..tafsiri yangu ya hukumu ya mahakama ya rufani ni kwamba madai ya wapiga kura watatu wa Arusha, hayafikii "threshhold" ya kuweza kutengua matokeo ya uchaguzi wa mbunge.

 

[AshaDii]

AshaDii, Rutashubanyuma, Nyani Ngabu,

..Thank u AshaDii.

..tafsiri yangu ya hukumu ya mahakama ya rufani ni kwamba madai ya wapiga kura watatu wa Arusha, hayafikii "threshhold" ya kuweza kutengua matokeo ya uchaguzi wa mbunge.

Nakubaliana na wewe Jokakuu, ila I would say katika hio ruling the most interesting part kwa upande wangu ni udadafuzi wao juu ya victim kushitaki mwenyewe akihisi/ona kaonewa as opposed to kushitaki on behalf of the victim na the fact ya namna inavyokuwa transparent jinsi gani sheria inaweza tafsiriwa in what ever way as long as unaweza simamia hicho kipengele.

Hii inafanya some how iwe aibu sana kwa aliye toa hukumu awali kwa case ambayo ilikuwa apparent kuwa haina uzito tokana na vielelezo na hoja zilizowakilishwa.

 

[Azimio Jipya]

I said this somewhere else ..Typically, there is something I could not grasp in the whole matter UNLESS may be .. I go for the Professionalism ... which of-course...!!

 

[Kiranga]

Na mimi nilipata swali kama lako Rutashubanyuma, ila awali EMT alitoa msingi wa kisheria "locus standi" kwamba A akimkosea B, B ndiye mwenye haki ya kushtaki, na C atapata wapi kimbelembele kwa pilipili iliyo shamba. Akatupa mpaka ulatini wake kama msingi wa kisheria.

Lakini hili, ingawa linaweza kuondoa a litany of litigations in the sense of frivolous suits per Nyani Ngabu, a position I concurr with, haliondoi ukweli kwamba kuna kuondolewa haki fulani wapiga kura wa kawaida.

Najaribu kuangalia mambo kama ya uchaguzi kuwa si haki kama haki ya personal property. Ambapo unaweza kusema "A akimuibia shati B, wewe C ambaye huna uhusiano wowote na A wala B ukipeleka kesi mahakamani wakati B hajasema kitu utakuwa mzushi".

Swala la uchaguzi na uongozi wa nchi ni tofauti kwa sababu wananchi wote wana haki ya kuwa na uchaguzi wenye integrity, na hata kama mgombea kachoka na hataki/ hana uwezo wa kupeleka kesi mahakamani, wafuasi wake au watu baki wanaotaka kupeleka kesi mahakamani wasinyimwe haki hii.

Nashangaa kuona tunataka kuaminishwa kwamba matokeo ya uchaguzi na jinisi yalivyofikiwa na jinsi yanavyoweza kuwa challenged "is not a matter of public interest". Am I missing something here? Yatakosaje kuwa mambo ya public interest wakati the public vote is the basis of the outcome?

There is a thin line between love and hate, hell and the pearly gates. Our attempt to curb frivolous lawsuits for example, should not leave room to the infringement of the constitutional proviso given the people, that of fully participating in the political process.

A case could be made that there could emerge a verry malleable procession that would leave a losing candidate not knowing whether to endorse or reject a disputation case entered by a third party until very late in the process, a case that could possibly unearth some sleaze and wrongdoing the losing candidate due to one reason or another, and the numerous Machiavellian machinations employed in the political juggernaults, would not be privy to.

It is hard to reconcile this curbing of the peoples rights as a purely non-draconian measure to rid the courts of excessively senseless overlitigation.

Where does a sensible attempt to address needless over-litigations end and a draconian curtailing begin?

Kama lengo ni ku throw out frivolous litigations kwa nini kusiwe na process yenye criteria rahisi ya kuangalia kesi hizi kwa haraka na kuzitupa zote zilizo frivolous mwanzo kabisa?

Am I missing something here? Is our system that bad that we have to resort to "Mtego wa Panya unasao waliotakiwa na wasiotakiwa?".

Let's say mie naona kuna matatizo na uchaguzi fulani, A na B wameshindana, A kashinda, mie nimeona matatizo katika uchaguzi nataka yawe addressed, haina maana nataka B ashinde, then according kwa hii ruling itakuwaje? Nina provisions za ku advance kesi yangu bila ya ushirikiano wa mgombea yeyote?

 

[Bramo]

Nakubaliana na wewe Jokakuu, ila I would say katika hio ruling the most interesting part kwa upande wangu ni udadafuzi wao juu ya victim kushitaki mwenyewe akihisi/ona kaonewa as opposed to kushitaki on behalf of the victim na the fact ya namna inavyokuwa transparent jinsi gani sheria inaweza tafsiriwa in what ever way as long as unaweza simamia hicho kipengele.

Hii inafanya some how iwe aibu sana kwa aliye toa hukumu awali kwa case ambayo ilikuwa apparent kuwa haina uzito tokana na vielelezo na hoja zilizowakilishwa.

Ndio maana wengine tulimshangaa sana Jaji Gabriel, hii kitu ilikuwa very transparent from the beggining, hao walalamikaji walishindwa kusema ni kwa namna gani Kampeni za Lema ziliathiri haki zao kama walalamikaji, na Mbaya zaid, Dr Batilda hata hakutokea Mahakamani kutoa Ushahidi, na Mpaka sasa yuko Kimyaaaa.
Yaani walalamikaj ni kama CCM iliwatumia kama Toilet paper na sasa ishawachinjia Baharini, na Arusha tunataka waturudishie Gharama za Mbunge wetu alizotumia kwenye hii kesi

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

Lakini hili, ingawa linaweza kuondoa a litany of litigations in the sense of frivolous suits per Nyani Ngabu, a position I concurr with, haliondoi ukweli kwamba kuna kuondolewa haki fulani wapiga kura wa kawaida.

Najaribu kuangalia mambo kama ya uchaguzi kuwa si haki kama haki ya personal property. Ambapo unaweza kusema "A akimuibia shati B, wewe C ambaye huna uhusiano wowote na A wala B ukipeleka kesi mahakamani wakati B hajasema kitu utakuwa mzushi".

Swala la uchaguzi na uongozi wa nchi ni tofauti kwa sababu wananchi wote wana haki ya kuwa na uchaguzi wenye integrity, na hata kama mgombea kachoka na hataki/ hana uwezo wa kupeleka kesi mahakamani, wafuasi wake au watu baki wanaotaka kupeleka kesi mahakamani wasinyimwe haki hii.

Nashangaa kuona tunataka kuaminishwa kwamba matokeo ya uchaguzi na jinisi yalivyofikiwa na jinsi yanavyoweza kuwa challenged "is not a matter of public interest". Am I missing something here? Yatakosaje kuwa mambo ya public interest wakati the public vote is the basis of the outcome?

The election of a member of parliament is a matter of public interest. Why? Because, first, the parliament is one third of the government. It's the nation's lawmaking body.

That brings me to my second point. Its members are lawmakers (legislators). When we elect them we entrust them with the responsibility of making laws that affect all of us (the public).

Third, because we follow the principle of separation of powers with our government and that the parliament is one third of it, when we elect its members we also entrust them with the job of ensuring that there are mutual restraints among the other two branches (of government).

Fourth, it's the taxpayers money that is used to run the government (save for some donor money). It's we, the taxpayers, who pay for their salaries and other benefits.

It is my firm belief that our government, to quote Abe Lincoln, is "of the people, by the people, for the people". Because of that, we, the people, all have a stake in the election of our leaders.

And most of us want the election of our leaders to have the utmost integrity. If their election was marred by irregularities and such, then, if there is a resulting election litigation, that litigation is a matter of public interest. No one can convince me that an election litigation of a member of parliament is not a matter of public interest. It is very much so.

 

[Zakumi]

The election of a member of parliament is a matter of public interest. Why? Because, first, the parliament is one third of the government. It's the nation's lawmaking body.

That brings me to my second point. Its members are lawmakers (legislators). When we elect them we entrust them with the responsibility of making laws that affect all of us (the public).

Third, because we follow the principle of separation of powers with our government and that the parliament is one third of it, when we elect its members we also entrust them with the job of ensuring that there are mutual restraints among the other two branches (of government).

Fourth, it's the taxpayers money that is used to run the government (save for some donor money). It's we, the taxpayers, who pay for their salaries and other benefits.

It is my firm belief that our government, to quote Abe Lincoln, is "of the people, by the people, for the people". Because of that, we, the people, all have a stake in the election of our leaders.

And most of us want the election of our leaders to have the utmost integrity. If their election was marred by irregularities and such, then, if there is a resulting election litigation, that litigation is a matter of public interest. No one can convince me that an election litigation of a member of parliament is not a matter of public interest. It is very much so.

Well said. Also it's a matter of constitutional rights. Watu hawapigi kura kwa sababu uchaguzi umefika. Wanapiga kura kwa sababu katiba ambayo ni mkataba wa serikali na wananchi unatoa fursa hiyo.

Na ndani ya katiba ya sasa kuna vipengere vingi vinavyowapa raia haki ya kupiga kura. Hivyo mtu yoyote anayetumia njia zisizo sahihi katika uchaguzi anawanyima wapiga kura haki zao. Na wapiga kura hao wanaweza kufungua mashtaka.

Vilevile ni mtu aliyepewa mamlaka ya kikatiba (hakimu au jaji) mwenye uwezo wa kutoa hukumu ya mashtaka. Hivyo mtu anaweza kufungua kesi yoyote hile hata kama haina misingi ya kushinda kwa sababu kufungua kesi ni haki ya kikatiba pia.

 

[Gaijin]

Mahakama Kuu imepoka haki ya raia.

Mbali ya kuwa anaechagulia kwenye uchaguzi atakuwa na athari kwa watu wote wa jimbo, lakini ni haki na wajibu wa kila raia kuhakikisha sheria za nchi zinafuatwa

Hapa mahakama kuu ni sawa na kutuambia kuwa ukimuona mwizi anaiba kwa jirani usiite polisi kwa sababu haijakuhusu huibiwi wewe?!

Anaechaguliwa kwenye uchaguzi ana athari ya moja kwa moja kwa mchguliwa na raia kutaka fairness kwenye uchaguzi ni ndani ya wajibu wao.

 

[Nguruvi3]

Rutashubanyuma, nimeona mfano wako wa Al-Gore na Bush hapo juu.
Kwa mazingira yetu mfano huo hautakidhi haja ya Demokrasia kama wenzetu wafanyavyo.
Mfano, Marekani suala lolote likiwa mahakamani linajadiliwa kikamilifu bila hofu ya kuingilia uhuru wa mahakama.
Nadhani tumeona kesi za akina O.J, Laci Peterson, Scooter Libby n.k ambazo zimejadiliwa kwa kina sana na vyombo vya habari.

Msingi wa CA ya Tanzania ni kuzuia watu ku-abuse system na sidhani kama ni kuwanyang'anya haki ya kidemokrasia.
Uchaguzi ni kati ya A na B ambao wana wawakilishi, wapenzi na wanachama wao.
Endapo lipo tatizo basi ni wajibu wa anayehusika au wanaohusika au kuguswa na ukiukwaji wa taratibu kufikisha malalamiko kwa A au B ili wawe mashahidi kesi ikiwa mhakamani kati ya A na B.

Kinyume chake kutakuwa na kesi kila uchao na hizo zinaweza kuwa kikwazo cha demokrasia.
Wananchi wa Arusha wamekosa mwakilishi Bungeni kwa muda kadhaa kwa kesi ya watu isiyowahusu.

Ingekuwa ni mlalamikaji kama Hawa Ngumbi Vs Mnyika basi japo tungeelewa.
Ikiachiwa iendelee itakuwa kama mchezo, nadhani hapo ndipo mahakama ilipopaona.

Mahakama inajaribu kuzuia system abuse kama ilivyo sasa upande wa mashitaka mengine.
Linapotokea jambo mtu hukimbilia mahakamani na na jambo hilo halizungumziki achilia mbali kuchelewesha haki.
Imefika mahali serikali nayo pia imeingia katika mkumbo huo na hata kuwanyima watu haki zao.

Unakumbuka kesi ya kubenea, serikali ilikimbilia mahakamani kwa kuwakamata vibaka watatu na kusema si Kubenea au yoyote awaye anayeruhusiwa kuzungumzia suala hilo.

Ndivyo ilivyo kwa Mwangosi ambapo presha juu ya Nchimbi, IGP na wengine kujiuzu ilipozidi akakamatwa askari aliyefyatua risasi si aliyetoa ruhusa ili kuzima hoja kwa kujificha kichakani mahakamani.

Kesi ya Mtikila Vs Serikali hadi leo haijasemwa na ipo mahakamani.
Badala ya serikali kutimiza amri ya mahakama, serikali ilikimbilia mahakama kuu ili kuzuia haki na demokrasia.

Hoja yangu kubwa ni kuwa mahakama imeangalia abuse zinazotokana ima na demokrasi au sheria zetu za mazoea na kuona ipo haja ya kuzuia jambo hilo.

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

Rutashubanyuma, nimeona mfano wako wa Al-Gore na Bush hapo juu.
Kwa mazingira yetu mfano huo hautakidhi haja ya Demokrasia kama wenzetu wafanyavyo.
Mfano, Marekani suala lolote likiwa mahakamani linajadiliwa kikamilifu bila hofu ya kuingilia uhuru wa mahakama.
Nadhani tumeona kesi za akina O.J, Laci Peterson, Scooter Libby n.k ambazo zimejadiliwa kwa kina sana na vyombo vya habari.

Linajadilika kwa wengine tu ambao si wahusika wakuu wa kesi kama district attorneys, assistant district attorneys, defense counsels, detectives, mashahidi, jurors, na wengineo kama hao.

Lakini mimi na wewe, ma pundits, legal experts, wajuvi na wajuzi, wote rukhsa kujadili. Lengo kuu ni kui-try kesi mahakamani na si kwenye media. Uliwaona Marcia Clark, Chris Darden, au Johnnie Cochran Jr. wakiongea kwenye TV wakati trial ikiendelea? Sidhani!

Msingi wa CA ya Tanzania ni kuzuia watu ku-abuse system na sidhani kama ni kuwanyang'anya haki ya kidemokrasia.
Uchaguzi ni kati ya A na B ambao wana wawakilishi, wapenzi na wanachama wao.
Endapo lipo tatizo basi ni wajibu wa anayehusika au wanaohusika au kuguswa na ukiukwaji wa taratibu kufikisha malalamiko kwa A au B ili wawe mashahidi kesi ikiwa mhakamani kati ya A na B.

Suala la uchaguzi wa viongozi wa kitaifa ni suala lenye maslahi kwa wote. Hivyo basi ni haki ya msingi ya raia yeyote yule kufungua kesi mahakamani kama anaona kuwa uchaguzi huo haukuwa wa haki.

Kinyume chake kutakuwa na kesi kila uchao na hizo zinaweza kuwa kikwazo cha demokrasia.
Wananchi wa Arusha wamekosa mwakilishi Bungeni kwa muda kadhaa kwa kesi ya watu isiyowahusu.

Ni wajibu wa mahakama kuangalia kama madai ya mtu yana merit au la. Kama hayana basi kesi inatupwa huko. Lakini huwezi kumuondolea mtu haki yake ya msingi ya kufungua mashitaka mahakamani endapo yeye anaamini kulikuwa na ukiukwaji wa aina yoyote ile.

 

[Rutashubanyuma]

This is Africa.

zomba We can better Africa and we deserve better than this.....

 

[Kiranga]

Nguruvi3

Nafikiri post yangu hapo juu imeeleza vizuri swala la frivolous suits kwa kum quote Nyani Ngabu na ku extrapolate, na yeye karudi kuelezea vizuri sana with an enviable eloquent poignancy, as he is capable of often. Gaijin kimsingi kasema my argument, which gave leeway for private property cases, is overly generous and she should be able to bring justice to a thief breaking into a house thats not hers.

A pretty damning case to argue against.

Sheria inatakiwa kufanya kila kitu kuhakikisha haki za kikatiba hazivunjwi.

 

[Rutashubanyuma]

Rutashubanyuma,

..can u provide us with a copy of the ruling made by the Court of Appeals.

..I dont think the court ruled that voters have no rights to question the legitimacy of an election.

..Instead the court ruled that the alleged utterances that Lema made during the campaigns did not amount to anything that could have affected the voters or the election results.

..now, let me put it in Swahili: mahakama ilimhukumu Lema kwa kutoa maneno ya kashfa ambayo ilisemekana yaliwaathiri wapiga kura na matokeo ya uchaguzi.

A copy of the ruling is hereby appended
[h=3]Exclusive: Hukumu ya kesi ya Mh. Godbless Lema iliyosomwa Disemba 21, 2012[/h]
JokaKuu Mahakama ya Rufaa ilikwepa kuchunguza tuhuma dhidi ya Lema kwa kutumia sababu za kiufundi ambazo ni pamoja na:-

1) Wajibu rufani walishindwa kuthibitisha wao walikuwa wameandikishwa kama wapigakura wa jimbo la Arusha na hivyo hakuna rekodi ndani ya jarada la Mahakama juu ya hilo!

Nukuu zake na kama ifuatavyo:-

But in our case there is no evidence on the record to indicate that the respondents were registered voters. The record contains annextures. It is trite law that annextures are not evidence for the court of law to act and rely upon.

In our case, we have shown that Mr. Alute attempted to establish that the respondents were registered voters by presenting their certificates to the trial judge. In the first place, the record does not indicate as to why Mr. Alute himself "presented" the certificate to the trial judge. Second, even the procedure of "presenting" the certificates is contrary to the well known procedure of tendering documents in courts. Ordinarily such evidence must come direct and tendered by the owner of such document. We wish to point out that generally speaking the Evidence Act is intended to provide guidance on how and what evidence can be taken in judicial proceedings in order to prevent or at least minimize the chances of a miscarriage of justice. Without following the basic safeguards in the law of evidence, a trial court can easily deteriorate into a Kangaroo Court (See Herman Henjewele VR Criminal Appeal No. 164/2005 CAT (unreported). Furthermore, the record does not show the appellant to have been given opportunity to say something in connection with the "presentation" of the certificates in question as per the well established practice. To crown it all the same were returned to Mr. Alute on the same day. So, then they are not part and parcel of the record, notwithstanding the manner in which they were presented. In view of the legal flaws shown above, we are of the settled mind that there is no evidence on the record to show that the respondents were registered voters for purpose of section 111(1) (a) of the Act.

2) Mahakama ya Rufaa ilitofautisha haki za mpigakura na mgombea nafasi ya uongozi na kudai mpigakura haki zake ni pale tu anapopiga kura na hana haki ya kuhoji matokeo ya kura alizopiga hiyo ni kazi ya mgombea kinyume kabisa na maelekezo ya katiba yetu kama nitakavyonukuu:-

In our case the issue for consideration and decision is whether or not a registered voter under section 111(1)(a) of the Act has an absolute right to challenge the election result even where his rights were not infringed. We have given a deep thought to the matter. First, we wish to point out that election petitions are not in our view public interest litigation though they are matters of great public importance. This is because the relief sought would not benefit the entire society as a whole. Second the petition was not brought under Article 26(2) of the Constitution which permits any person to bring a public interest litigation. The Article provides:-

26(2) Every person is entitled, subject to the procedure provided for by the law, to institute proceedings for the protection of the constitution and legality.​

Tatizo la Mahakama ya Rufaa ni kuwa hapo nilipoweka alama nyekundu. Hakuna mahali poote kwenye uamuzi wao walichunguza madai husika lakini wakaja na mahitimisho ambayo yana walakini mno. Hivi walijuaje haki za wapinga rufani hazikuwa zimekiukwa na wao hawakutaka kuchunguza madai yao? Huu ni uhuni mtupu na tena unafanywa na watu wazima tena Waheshimiwa wanahaki.

3) Mwisho Mahakama baada ya kujenga mazingira yao ya kukwepa kuchunguza tuhuma za matumizi ya matusi na kama kweli tuhuma zenyewe lema alizifanya na kwa kiasi gani sheria ya uchaguzi iliathirika na kumsababaishia maumivu Dr. Burian Salha Batilda. Hayo Mahakama ilikaa kimya kabisa.................

Na na nukuu:-

Having taken this view, we are of the settled mind that the respondents had no locus standi in the election petition they filed in the High Court. That alone is enough to dispose of the appeal. We find the appeal to have merit. The appeal succeeds and we set aside the judgment, decree and order of the High Court. We declare the appellant Member of Parliament for Arusha constituency. We allow the appeal with costs to the appellant and we certify costs to two counsel.

 

[Rutashubanyuma]

Mkuu JokaKuu,

If you want to understand where Rutashubanyuma's insinuation on the matter is emitting from, go through the thread of this provided link - Mahakama ya Rufaa: Ukishindwa uchaguzi, shitaki mwenyewe... In courtesy of EMT. For further information do read Nyani Ngabu 's 10[SUP]th [/SUP]post of the same thread.

AshaDii naona siku hizi umenichoka sana.............yaani sasa I am emitting insunuations? GOd forbid.................Am only stating facts of the case through the prisms of my own understanding......choices of words is vital my sister....................najua hukumaanisha ulichoandika.............I overlook it as diction error

 

[Rutashubanyuma]

I said this somewhere else ..Typically, there is something I could not grasp in the whole matter UNLESS may be .. I go for the Professionalism ... which of-course...!!

[MENTION]
Azimio Jipya[/MENTION] Tatizo letu tunafikiri kwenye kutoa haki unaweza kusomea hakuna hilo......................ndiyo maana nchi kama Marekani wenye kutoa haki siyo majaji ni raia wanaoitwa "the jury"

Na kuwa jaji Marekani hadi Mahakama ya "Supreme Court" huhitaji kusomea sheria ila unatakiwa uwe na sifa ya kutetea haki tu..........................

Kupenda na kutetea haki hicho ni kipaji ambacho ni Mwenyezi Mungu tu anaweza kukupa.

 

[Rutashubanyuma]

AshaDii, Rutashubanyuma, Nyani Ngabu,

..Thank u AshaDii.

..tafsiri yangu ya hukumu ya mahakama ya rufani ni kwamba madai ya wapiga kura watatu wa Arusha, hayafikii "threshhold" ya kuweza kutengua matokeo ya uchaguzi wa mbunge.

[MENTION]
JokaKuu[/MENTION] Haya uliyaandika hapa umeyatoa kichwani kwako. Mahakama ya Rufaa haikuyachunguza madai ya wajibu rufaa zaidi ya kuhoji uhalali wao wa kufungua hiyo kesi na kuishia kusema mpigakura hana haki ya kufungua kesi ya kupinga matokeo.

Nimekubandikia hukumu husika hebu jisomee.......