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

[Rutashubanyuma]

By 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.
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.

AshaDii Mahakama ya Rufaa haikuchunguza uamuzi wa jaji aliyelisikiliza shauri zaidi ya kukosoa utaratibu wa kuwatambua wafungua shauri kama kweli walijiandikisha kulingana na sheria ushahidi. Tafsiri ya Mahakama ya Rufaa ina utata mkubwa kuwa mwanasheria hawezi kuonyesha vielelezo wakati wafungua shauri wapo. Hii ni tafsiri mpya ambayo huwa haitumiwi na mahakama zetu. Mazoea ni kuwa wakili ndiye huvitoa vielelezo husika mahakamani. Mahakama ya Rufaa sasa inasema ya kuwa kama mashahidi wapo wao ndiyo wavitoe wao wenyewe na wala siyo vinginevyo.

Hili Mahakama ya Rufaa inaelekea limewasumbua na ndiyo maana wakatafuta eneo jingine la kusimamia katika kukataa kuuchunguza uamuzi wa kiawali Naomba niwanukuu:-

Assuming for argument sake that the respondents were registered voters, did they have locus standi to petition and challenge the election basing on the alleged uncivil words the appellant is said to have uttered during the campaign period.?

Wakamalizia na kusema ya kuwa wafungua shauri hawakuwa na haki ya kulifungua shauri lenyewe..............That is all sasa yule Jaji Mujuluzi ameumbuliwa wapi?

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]

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?

Kiranga nionavyo Mahakama ya Rufaa ilichofanya ni kwenda na upepo wa kisiasa ya kuwa jamii tayari iliona Mahakama Kuu ilomwonea Lema kwa sababu anaisimbua serikali. Yule Jaji aliyetoa hukumu Mujulizi naye aelekea alifanya maamuzi kwa utashi wa kisiasa lakini Ingelifaa kama Mahakama Kuu ingelimdhalilisha badala ya kutafuta namna ya kumlinda mwenzao kwa kutouchunguza uamuzi wa kiawali na kutuacha na maswali mengi ambayo yamebadili tafsiri ya sheria ya ushahidi na pia kifungu cha Ibara 26(2) ya Katiba na tafsiri tajwa zina utata mkubwa........

 

[Rutashubanyuma]

By AshaDii
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

Bramo haki za mpiga kura ni pamoja na kuhakikisha uchaguzi umefanyika kulingana na sheria ya uchaguzi hili jopo limechemsha sana. Tatizo la wengi ni ushabiki wa kisiasa badala ya kuangalia mambo ya kimsingi. Hii haimanishi Lema hakuonewa kwenye uamuzi wa kiawali lakini ilibidi madai husika yachunguzwe badala ya kufifilisha haki za wapigakura........uamuzi huu utatusumbua sana siku za usoni. Fikiria mgombea akihongwa na asiende mahakamani wale walimpigia kura sasa hawana lao? Ni aibu hii

 

[Gaijin]

Hii hukumu tata sana. Chukulia iwapo uchaguzi umefanyika na mgombea mmoja kakiuka sheria za uchaguzi lakini akashinda, bahati mbaya mshindwa akafa soon baada ya uchaguzi, wananchi ndio warndelee kuongozwa na mtu mdanganyifu asiyefuata sheria kwa sababu "pilipili ya shamba"?!

Kusema ukiukaji wa sheria za uchaguzi hakuzuwii haki ya wapiga kura wa jimbo ni kukosa mantiki kwa majaji wetu, au iwe wamefanya kwa makusudi mazima ili kuinusuru CCM kuaibika zaidi kwenye uchaguzi mdogo


Nilitegemea mahakama kuu i-extend haki ya kufungua mashtaka hata kwa wapiga kura wasiokuwa kutoka jimbo linalopingwa kwa kuwa mshindi wa uchaguzi wa Bunge anaathiri raia wa Tanzania nzima na sio jimbo lake tu, badala yake imepora haki hata kwa watu wa ndani ya jimbo

 

[Rutashubanyuma]

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.

[MENTION]
Zakumi[/MENTION] na katiba kwenye Ibara ndogo ya 26 (2) imempa mamlaka mpigakura kufungua kesi ya kupinga matokeo...............sasa hii haki mpigakura kanyang'anywa na hii hukumu. Mazingira haya yanatisha

 

[Rutashubanyuma]

Hii hukumu tata sana. Chukulia iwapo uchaguzi umefanyika na mgombea mmoja kakiuka sheria za uchaguzi lakini akashinda, bahati mbaya mshindwa akafa soon baada ya uchaguzi, wananchi ndio warndelee kuongozwa na mtu mdanganyifu asiyefuata sheria kwa sababu "pilipili ya shamba"?!

Kusema ukiukaji wa sheria za uchaguzi hakuzuwii haki ya wapiga kura wa jimbo ni kukosa mantiki kwa majaji wetu, au iwe wamefanya kwa makusudi mazima ili kuinusuru CCM kuaibika zaidi kwenye uchaguzi mdogo


Nilitegemea mahakama kuu i-extend haki ya kufungua mashtaka hata kwa wapiga kura wasiokuwa kutoka jimbo linalopingwa kwa kuwa mshindi wa uchaguzi wa Bunge anaathiri raia wa Tanzania nzima na sio jimbo lake tu, badala yake imepora haki hata kwa watu wa ndani ya jimbo

Gaijin Tatizo la nchi majaji na mahakimu uteuzi wao wananchi hawashirikishwi kama ilivyo sasa Kenya ambako tume huru ya Majaji na mahakimu ipo na kabla ya kuwasaili hutawatangaza kwenye vyombo vya habari na kuwahamasisha raia kuleta khoja zao kama zipo za kupinga uteuzi wao.

mengi yameibuliwa Kenya.........................nasi tunapaswa kwenye hii katiba kufanya hivyo.

Vinginevyo Majaji na mahakimu wataendelea kutuchezea na kudumisha dhuluma kwa wale ambao hawana uwezo wa kudai haki zao mbele ya mahakama zetu.

 

[Rutashubanyuma]

nimeongeza khoja nyingine kwenye mada kulingana na michango hasa iliyokuwa inahitaji ufafanuzi fulani fulani.

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

a) Je mpiga kura wa Arusha Mjini anaweza kwenda kulalamikia uchaguzi wa Mbunge wa Ubungo kwa sababu ni kwa ajili ya "public interests" na kwa vile na yeye yumo kwenye daftari la wapiga kura na kuna uthibitisho wa kadi yake ya mpiga kura?

Binafsi tatizo nililonalo la hukumu hii ni kuwa haikujaribu kwenda mbali zaidi kwani wao walipoamua tu kuwa walalamikaji hawana locus standi hapo hapo wakaamua kutupilia mbali kesi nzima. Binafsi nilidhani hata kinadharia wangeamua kusema kuwa pamoja na kuwakuta na locus standi bado ushahidi wote unaonesha kuwa hukumu ya Mahakama Kuu ulikuwa na makosa. Walichofanya Mahakama ya Rufaa ni kutoangalia kabisa ushahidi uliotolewa kwenye mahakama kuu pamoja na mwenendo mzima wa kesi na hasa hoja zilizomfanya Jaji wa Mahakama Kuu kumvua Ubunge Lema.

b) Je ni "public interests" maneno anbayo hayana ushahidi wowote ambayo yanadaiwa kutolewa yanaweza kulazimisha kura za watu zaidi ya 50,000 kufutwa? Sasa hivi inaonekana kutakuwa na new "public interests" test. Ninavyoona ni kuwa Mahakama ya Rufaa imenarrow sana maana ya "mpiga kura" na vile vile maana ya "public interests" kwa sababu vinginevyo kungeweza kuwa na abuse sana kwenye mambo ya kura.

Lakini zaidi ni kuwa mfumo wetu wa uchaguzi ulivyo nadhani unalazimisha abuse of the process na hata abuse of the judicial system. Angalia kwa miezi karibu kumi Arusha Mjini walikuwa hawana mwakilishi Bungeni. Kusema kuwa mpiga kura wa jimbo lolote anaweza kulalamikia jimbo jingine lolote kwa vile wote ni wabunge wa Muungano utafanya tuulize kama ni hivyo kwanini tunafanya uchaguzi kwenye majimbo ambayo yanakuwa hayana mbunge wakati wapo wabunge wengine ambao nao wangeweza kuwakilisha bunge lisilo na MBunge? Kwa mfano, kwanini basi Lema arudishiwe Ubunge wakati majimbo yanayomzunguka yana wabunge ambao wanaweza 'kuwakilisha" Arusha vile vile?

HIvyo maana ya "mpiga kura" na "public interests" kwa maana ya kesi za uchaguzi ilihitaji kufafanuliwa vizuri zaidi. Sijui kama Mahakama ya Rufaa imefanya hivyo vizuri.

 

[EMT]

Rutashubanyuma,

Hivi Mahakama ya Rufaa imesema kuwa "election is not a public interest matter" au "election petition is not a public interest litigation"? Are these two phases the same?

Itakuwa vigumu sana kwa mtu kudai kuwa uchaguzi is not a matter of public interest. But the fact that an election is a public interest matter does not necessarily mean that every litigation arising from an election will be of a public interest. Kuna kesi kibao za uchaguzi kuhusu madiwani, mbona hazi-attract public interest?

Kama Mahakama ya Rufaa ilivyosema the "test whether a litigation is of public interest depends on the nature of the relief sought and its effect" (pg 10). Kwenye kesi ya Lema, walalamikaji walikuwa wanatafuta relief gani? Did the relief sought have a public interest element in it?

I agree with the court that election petitions are not necessarily public interest litigation (though they are matters of great public importance), unless the relief sought benefits the entire society as a whole or a significant section of the society.

Nikiachana na hilo, Lema ameshinda kesi based on technicalities. Kwenye appeal, Lema alikuwa na grounds 18. Mahakama ya Rufaa decided on the first ground only which was the standing of the respondents. This was the easiest ground to decide on.

Ndiyo maana nilikuwa na-question tokea mwanzo why the CJ decided to step in the case in the first place. Maana hata mwanafunzi wa sheria mwaka wa pili angetupilia mbali hii kesi on ground of lack of standing. Fortunately, CJ alikuja kushtuka later kuwa it was none of those complex cases.

Kwenye hii kesi, ikiwa Mahakama Kuu Lema alipinga kuwa walalamikaji walikuwa hawana locus stand. Mahakama Kuu iliamua kuwa "a registered voter had an absolute right to bring an election petition even where his rights as a voter were not violated in any way."

But the Court of Appeal found "no evidence on the record to indicate that the respondents were registered voters for the purpose of section 111(1)(a) of the [Election Act]" (pages 6 and 9). The Court of Appeal continued: "The record contains annextures. It is trite law that annextures are not evidence for the court of law to act and rely upon." (pg 6). Upo mpaka hapo?

Hata the way the claimants presented their certificates of registration to the court was not according to the law. For avoidance of the miscarriage of justice, there are legal procedures for tendering documents in legal proceedings. You don't just go there and "present" the documents to the judge. Ndiyo maana wengine wanalalamika kuwa baadhi ya majaji wetu ni vilaza.

Kwa hiyo, mpaka hapo walalamikaji walikuwa tayari wameshashindwa kesi on technicalities. Kuanzia page 9 ya hukumu, Mahakama ya Rufaa was just assuming kama walalamikaji walikuwa registered voters, je walikuwa na locus stand? Now, lets assume kwamba kulikuwa na ushahidi (not based on those damn anextures) kuwa walalamikaji walikuwa wamejiandikisha kama wapiga kura and that such evidence was properly tendered in court.

Kama kweli walalamikaji waliamini kuwa kulikuwa na public interest kwenye kesi ya Lema basi si wangefungua kesi chini ya kifungu cha 26(2) cha Katiba ambacho kinasema kuwa "Every person is entitled, subject to the procedure provided for by the law, to institute proceedings for the protection of the constitution and legality."?

Kama kweli una a genuine concern and you strongly believe that it is a matter of public interest to have this addressed, why don't you go through the constitution in bringing the claim? Mbona tunamwona Mtikila anakitumia sana kifungu hicho kila mara? Why not claimants in Lema's case?

Kama wangeleta kesi chini ya kifungu hicho then, wangekuwa na nafasi ya kubwa kuidhibitishia mahakama kwa nini kulikuwa na public interest kwenye kesi ya Lema. Wangeweza kuidhibishia mahakama legally and factually kuwa kushinda kwa Lema kungeliathiri vipi haki zao na katiba. Even the relief sought would have been different.

Walichofanya walalamikaji probably kwa ushauri wa kisiasa rather than wa kisheria waliamua kuileta kesi chini ya sheria ya uchaguzi. Mahakama Kuu ikaamua kuwa "a registered voter had an absolute right to bring an election petition even where his rights as a voter were not violated in any way." Really? Why bring a case whilst your rights have not been violated in any way? This simply encourages frivolous litigation.

Assuming walalamikaji walikuwa wamejiandikisha kama wapiga kura, then kama Mahakama ya Rufaa ingekubaliana na Mahakama Kuu on this point, then ina maana kuwa mtu ambaye amejiandikisha na kupiga kura Pemba angeweza kumshtaki mgombea aliyeshinda udiwani Sumbawanga regardless of whether his/her rights were actually violated. This would have been very absurd indeed. Hata sijui huyo Mpemba angeifungua kesi huko huko Pemba au angesafiri mpaka Sumbawanga kufungua kesi?

The golden rule of statutory interpretation provides that the literal rule of statutory interpretation should not be followed except on those occasions when to apply the literal rule would lead to absurd results or go against pubic policy. This is exactly what the Court of Appeal did by strictly construing the relevant provision in the Election Act.


Gaijin,

Mfano wako wa "ni sawa na kutuambia kuwa ukimuona mwizi anaiba kwa jirani usiite polisi kwa sababu haijakuhusu huibiwi wewe?!"

Kwa hiyo wewe ukimtukana Nyani Ngabu, basi mie niwahi fasta mahakamani kukushtaki kwa vile tuu sikupendezwa na ulivyomtukana? Tutofautishe kati ya kesi za jinai na madai.

Lakini swali lako kama mgombea aliyetakiwa kushtaki akifa is relevant. But this can be addressed by allowing the loosing political party to sue just like the loosing candidate would have done. Nchi nyingi zinaruhusu vyama kushtaki. Do you think we should have such a law in Tanzania? Bear in mind that kuna thread nimeona humu eti CCM wamewaruka waliomshitaki Lema kuwa CCM haihusiki kabisa na gharama zozote za kesi hiyo. lol.

JokaKuu, AshaDii, Azimio Jipya, Kiranga, Bramo, Nyani Ngabu, Zakumi, Gaijin, Nguruvi3, Mzee Mwanakijiji

 

[Gaijin]

a. Je mpiga kura wa Arusha Mjini anaweza kwenda kulalamikia uchaguzi wa Mbunge wa Ubungo kwa sababu ni kwa ajili ya "public interests" na kwa vile na yeye yumo kwenye daftari la wapiga kura na kuna uthibitisho wa kadi yake ya mpiga kura?

Kimsingi, ninadhani inatakiwa kuwa halali kwa mpiga kura yoyote kufungua malalamiko ya popote.

Chukua kesi ya Lema kwa mfano. Moja ya madai dhidi yake ni kukiuka sheria za uchaguzi kwa kupiga kampeni kwamba Mpinzani wake asichaguliwe kwa sababu ni mwanamke na hafai uongozi kutokana na uanauke wake

Hayo madai sio yanamuathiri Dk.Buriani tu, bali wanawake wote walio wania nafasi kwenye uchaguzi na wanawake wote wa Tanzania kwa ujumla wao.

Kumkataza mwanamke mwengine kumfungulia mashitaka Lema kwa sababu si mkaazi wa Arusha, ni kufinya haki ya mwanamke huyo.

Kusema kuwa mpiga kura wa jimbo lolote anaweza kulalamikia jimbo jingine lolote kwa vile wote ni wabunge wa Muungano utafanya tuulize kama ni hivyo kwanini tunafanya uchaguzi kwenye majimbo ambayo yanakuwa hayana mbunge wakati wapo wabunge wengine ambao nao wangeweza kuwakilisha bunge lisilo na MBunge? Kwa mfano, kwanini basi Lema arudishiwe Ubunge wakati majimbo yanayomzunguka yana wabunge ambao wanaweza 'kuwakilisha" Arusha vile vile?

Tunafanya uchaguzi kwenye majimbo ambayo hayana wabunge kwa sababu tunataka wabunge wawe wengi wa kutosha kuweza kushughulikia matatizo ya wananchi na sio kwa sababu Mbunge wa jimbo fulani ana-impact kwa watu wa eneo hilo fulani pekee.

Sheria za uchaguzi wa Tanzania zinaruhusu Mgombea kupigiwa kura katika jimbo ambalo yeye si mpigaji kura wake. (Rejelea; Shein na Uchaguzi wa Zanzibar). Kwa nini ikataze mpiga kura kuweka pingamizi katika jimbo ambalo yeye si mpiga kura wake, wakati atakaechaguliwa atamuathiri yeye moja kwa moja?

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

Gaijin unachotengeneza ni sliperly slope. Mahakama ya rufaa imeona hatari ya hiyo na sasa ineweke mpaka kuwa wale ambao haki yao imevunjwa ndio wanaeeza kulalamika.

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

EMT umeeleza vizuri sana kwani navyo ndicyo nilivyoelewa na naona ni hukumu nzuri sana kwa demokrasia.

 

[Gaijin]

Gaijin,

Mfano wako wa “ni sawa na kutuambia kuwa ukimuona mwizi anaiba kwa jirani usiite polisi kwa sababu haijakuhusu huibiwi wewe?!”

Kwa hiyo wewe ukimtukana Nyani Ngabu, basi mie niwahi fasta mahakamani kukushtaki kwa vile tuu sikupendezwa na ulivyomtukana? Tutofautishe kati ya kesi za jinai na madai.

Lakini swali lako kama mgombea aliyetakiwa kushtaki akifa is relevant. But this can be addressed by allowing the loosing political party to sue just like the loosing candidate would have done. Nchi nyingi zinaruhusu vyama kushtaki. Do you think we should have such a law in Tanzania? Bear in mind that kuna thread nimeona humu eti CCM wamewaruka waliomshitaki Lema kuwa CCM haihusiki kabisa na gharama zozote za kesi hiyo. lol.

Ndio kanishitaki kwa kosa la kutoa maneno machafu hadharani, na sio kwa kumtukana Nyani Ngabu au kutaka Gaijin amlipe fidia Nyani Ngabu kwa kumkashifu

Kwenye kesi ya Lema, tunashitaki kuwa uchaguzi haukuwa fair kwa sababu taratibu zilikiukwa. Utaratibu wa uchaguzi kuwa fair ni suala la public interest na linaniathiri mimi mpiga kura kwa sababu linaweza kuniletea mshindi ambae ni mdanganyifu na asie mtiifu kwa sheria za Jamhuri hivyo kutokuwa mwakilishi bora wa mawazo yangu Bungeni

Mimi nataka sheria iruhusu mtu yoyote ndani ya Jamhuri kuweza kuweka pingamizi ya uchaguzi popote, hiyo ya vyama ninaona ni kutupunguzia haki na wajibu sisi raia.

On a lighter note; hii hukumu ya Mahakama ya Rufaa inaua heroism ya Mtanzania. Kimsingi inasema mtoto C akimuona Mtoto A anam-bully mtoto B, asiende kushtaki kwa Mwalimu kwa sababu haijamuhusu sie yeye anayekuwa bullied. Sheria ina undermine wajibu wa Mtanzania wa kuhakikisha sheria za nchi zinalindwa na kufuatwa

 

[EMT]

Kimsingi, ninadhani inatakiwa kuwa halali kwa mpiga kura yoyote kufungua malalamiko ya popote.

Chukua kesi ya Lema kwa mfano. Moja ya madai dhidi yake ni kukiuka sheria za uchaguzi kwa kupiga kampeni kwamba Mpinzani wake asichaguliwe kwa sababu ni mwanamke na hafai uongozi kutokana na uanauke wake

Hayo madai sio yanamuathiri Dk.Buriani tu, bali wanawake wote walio wania nafasi kwenye uchaguzi na wanawake wote wa Tanzania kwa ujumla wao.

Kumkataza mwanamke mwengine kumfungulia mashitaka Lema kwa sababu si mkaazi wa Arusha, ni kufinya haki ya mwanamke huyo.

huwa kuna taratibu za kuleta mashtaka mahakamani.

huwezi kwenda kushtaki mahakamani kama unavyoenda kushtaki kwa mjumbe wa nyumba kumi.

Ni wazi kabisa kuwa katiba inapinga ubaguzi wa aina yoyote ile regardless huo ubaguzi umefanyika kwenye kampeni za uchaguzi

Katiba hiyo hiyo inakupa haki ya kuleta shtaka mahakamani ili kuilinda pamoja na sheria nyingine.

Sasa kwa nini usiitumie hiyo katiba kuilinda na kukemea uvunjaji wa sheria na hasa ubaguzi wa wanawake?

Kwa nini uandikie mate wakati wino upo bana?

Yaani kweli unaamini hao waliofungua kesi walikuwa na nia ya dhati kabisa ya kumtetea mwanamke?

 

[EMT]

Ndio kanishitaki kwa kosa la kutoa maneno machafu hadharani, na sio kwa kumtukana Nyani Ngabu au kutaka Gaijin amlipe fidia Nyani Ngabu kwa kumkashifu

Kama kosa ni kutoa maneno machafu hadharani, basi hapo sidhani kama nitakuwa na mamlaka ya kukushtaki.

Ni Jamhuri pekee ndiyo itakuwa na mamlaka hayo na pia inaweza kutegemea kama NN atakubali kujitokeza kama shahidi.

Kwenye kesi ya Lema, tunashitaki kuwa uchaguzi haukuwa fair kwa sababu taratibu zilikiukwa. Utaratibu wa uchaguzi kuwa fair ni suala la public interest na linaniathiri mimi mpiga kura kwa sababu linaweza kuniletea mshindi ambae ni mdanganyifu na asie mtiifu kwa sheria za Jamhuri hivyo kutokuwa mwakilishi bora wa mawazo yangu Bungeni

Mimi nataka sheria iruhusu mtu yoyote ndani ya Jamhuri kuweza kuweka pingamizi ya uchaguzi popote, hiyo ya vyama ninaona ni kutupunguzia haki na wajibu sisi raia.

Kama utaruhusu kila mtu kufungua kesi, utahakikishaje the kuwa watu hawafungui frivolous cases? Maana NN akigombea udiwani na kushinda, utataka kumshtaki simply because alishawahi kukutukana huko nyuma.

On a lighter note;

hii hukumu ya Mahakama ya Rufaa inaua heroism ya Mtanzania. Kimsingi inasema mtoto C akimuona Mtoto A anam-bully mtoto B, asiende kushtaki kwa Mwalimu kwa sababu haijamuhusu sie yeye anayekuwa bullied. Sheria ina undermine wajibu wa Mtanzania wa kuhakikisha sheria za nchi zinalindwa na kufuatwa

Hapana. Naona unachanganya na kama vile unajaribu ku-generalise legal implications za hukumu ya mahakama ya rufaa.

Labda la maana hapa ni kupigania kuwe na sheria ya public interest standing kama bado unaona hiyo iliyopo kwenye katiba bado haitoshi.

As one judge put it, "t would...be a grave lacuna in our system of public law if a pressure group...or even a single public spirited taxpayer, were prevented by outdated technical rules of locus standi from bringing the matter to the attention of the court to vindicate the rule of law and get the unlawful conduct stopped."

Ndiyo maana katiba inatoa hiyo nafasi kwa kila mtu.

 

[Gaijin]

Yaani kweli unaamini hao waliofungua kesi walikuwa na nia ya dhati kabisa ya kumtetea mwanamke?

Nia na madhumuni ya mshtaki katika suala hili sio hoja. Hoja inasimama kwenye msingi wa shtaka lao.

Sheria ya uchaguzi inakataza ubaguzi pamoja na katiba ya nchi. Kwa nini unitake lazima nifungue kesi kwa mujibu wa kifungu cha katiba wakati sheria ya uchaguzi pia imekiukwa na Mimi ni beneficiary kwa yule atakaechaguliwa?

Ndio natumia sheria ya uchaguzi to punish him kwa kumvua ubunge ili liwe funzo kwa wengine

😀

 

[mharakati]

RUTA hizi topic zako za siku hizi zinakua a bit too technical...

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

Viapo vya wabunge wa Tanzania vikoje?

Na michango ya Mnyika bungeni, kwa mfano, ina maana haituhusu kabisa sisi wananchi wa Ikungu?

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

Itakuwa vigumu sana kwa mtu kudai kuwa uchaguzi is not a matter of public interest. But the fact that an election is a public interest matter does not necessarily mean that every litigation arising from an election will be of a public interest. Kuna kesi kibao za uchaguzi kuhusu madiwani, mbona hazi-attract public interest?

You mean they don't attract public attention or? Manake issue inaweza kabisa kuwa inahusu public interest lakini isi generate public's attention....

 

[Zakumi]

Viapo vya wabunge wa Tanzania vikoje?

Na michango ya Mnyika bungeni, kwa mfano, ina maana haituhusu kabisa sisi wananchi wa Ikungu?

Mnyika anawahusu watanzania wote kwani miswada anayoitunga au kupitisha inahusu watanzania wote na sio watu wa jimbo lake.

Matatizo yanayokuja hapa ni framing ya kesi yenyewe. Kesi hii na kushindwa kwa baadhi ya watanzania kupeleka kesi dhidi ya ushindi wa urais wa Dr. Kikwete ni masula ya kikatiba. Tunamlaumu Dr. Slaa kwa kushindwa kupeleka kesi lakini hata watanzania wengine huru walikuwa na haki ya kufanya hivyo.