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

[JokaKuu]

Rutashubanyuma,


..umepatia. I made some WRONG conclusions!!!


..after scanning thru' the court ruling, actually not all of it, I came out with a different conclusion.


..kutokana na posting yako namba # 17 naweza kusema kuna mahali mahakama imepatia na kuna mahali imekosea.


..kwa mfano: kama wajibu rufani walishindwa[through technicalities] kuwasilisha ushahidi wa ku-prove kuwa ni wapiga kura wa Arusha mjini kwanini mahakama ikubali madai yao kwamba waliathirika na kampeni pamoja na matokeo ya uchaguzi huo?? mahakama ilipaswa kuwa na USHAHIDI huo MKONONI[on the record]ili iweze kuutumia/kuu-consider ktk hukumu yake.

Second the petition was not brought under Article 26(2) of the Constitution which permits any person to bring a public interest litigation

..zaidi, kifungu nilichoweka hapo juu ni MUHIMU kukizingatia ktk kuiangalia huku hii. nimeona umeweka msisitizo kwenye vifungu vingine lakini hiki umekiacha.


NB:


..ninachoweza kusema ni kwamba majaji wamefanya makosa ya hapa na pale, lakini in the end they made the RIGHT CALL na HAKI IMETENDEKA.

 

[Zakumi]

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

EMT;

Sikuifatilia hii kesi na sijuhi mengi kuhusiana nayo. Kitu cha kwanza mtu yoyote ana uhuru wa kupeleka kesi mahakamani, hususa ni kesi za madai. Hivyo uamuzi wa mahakama uliotolewa kuhusu uchaguzi wa Arusha hauzuii mtanzania yoyote yule kufungua kesi inayofanana na hii.

Pili, mahakama inatoa hukumu kutokana ushahidi na vielelezo vilivyokubaliwa kutumika mahakamani. Sio kazi ya mahakama kufanya upelelezi au utafiti wa vielelezo vya kutumika kwenye kesi au watu wa kutoa ushahidi. Hivyo basi mtu anaweza kuwa na kesi nzuri lakini upande wake ukishindwa kutoa ushahidi na vielelezo vya kutosha, basi mahakama inaweza kutupilia mbali kesi.

Mara nyingi kwa emotions zetu, nimeona watu wengi hapa JF wakiitaka mahakama kufanya uchunguzi wa kutafuta ushahidi. Hiyo sio kazi ya mahakama na ikifanya hivyo itaondoa uhuru wake.

Vilevile kila kosa lina uzito wake na sehemu yake. Kutumia lugha ya kejeli au matusi katika kampeni na kutumia vitendo visivyokubalika wakati wa uchaguzi kama vile kuzuia watu kupiga kura vina uzito tofauti. Hivyo mahakama inaangalia uzito wa makosa na athari zake katika uchaguzi.

Tukirudi kwenye kesi husika, hata Marekani hakuna uhuru kamili wa mahakama. Kwa namna moja au nyingine mahakama zitaendelea kutoa maamuzi yenye upendeleo wa kisiasa.

Kesi hii ilikuwa kwenye mazingira ya kisiasa toka mwanzo. Kwa maoni yangu binafsi sioni kuwa hii kesi inaweza kutumika kama template ya maamuzi ya kesi zingine. Toka mwanzo public, wahusika katika kesi, na mahakama walikuwa wanajua wanafanya nini.

Maamuzi ya kisiasa yana faida na hasara zake inategemea huko upande gani. CCM au viongozi wa juu wa chama hicho waliweza kuitumia mahakama kwa faida yao kwa kumkomoa Lema au Chadema. Lakini kwa namna nyingine uamuzi wa mahakama kuu umeipa CDM publicity.

Tumbuke pia toka enzi ya Nyerere, mahakama imewavua ubunge watu mbalimbali akiwemo Jaji Warioba. Lakini lakini maamuzi hayo hayakuwa na publicity kubwa kama ya kesi hii.

Hivyo inawezekana maamuzi ya mahakama ya rufaa nayo ni ya kisiasa. Inawezekana CCM imekubali kuwa juhudi za kuivuluga CDM katika maeneo yake inakiongezea chama hicho umaarufu tu. Hivyo labda watawala wamehamua kufanya containment tu. Inawaachia CDM maeneo yao na CCM inajiimarisha katika maeneo yake.

 

[Zakumi]

Rutashubanyuma, EMT, na wengineo;

Katiba ya Tanzania haimtambui mgombea huru. Mgombea wa nafasi ya kisiasa ni lazima awakilishe chama. Kwa mantiki hii mgombea au mtu mwenye nafasi ya kisiasa ni mwanachama wa chama fulani. Na mtu huyo akifukuzwa uanachama au kuacha kwa hiari yake, anapoteza moja kwa moja nafasi zake.

Je kuwa mwanachama wa CCM huko Arusha au chama chenyewe hakiwezi kuwa locus standi?

 

[AshaDii]

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

I did not mean it in a bad way Rutta... Pardon my misuse of the word 'insinuate'.

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

Rutashubanyuma, EMT, na wengineo;


Je kuwa mwanachama wa CCM huko Arusha au chama chenyewe hakiwezi kuwa locus standi?

Hili naweza kusema jibu litakuwa ni kuwa Chama cha Siasa kina locus standi kwenye kesi ya uchaguzi. Hasa pale ambapo kina amini hukumu iliyotolewa ina adverse effect kwake. Kwenye hili la Arusha Mjini Chama cha Mapinduzi hakikuwa mlalamikaji na wala hakikujiweka kama amicus curie na hivyo hatujui msimamo wake kwenye ile kesi ni nini.

Batilda Buriani alitakiwa kufungua hiyo kesi yeye mwenyewe na kama kulikuwa na kundi la wanawake ambao nao waliamini kuwa kweli Lema alisema maneno ya kuwadhalilisha basi na wao wangejiunganisha kwenye kesi hiyo. Lakini halikufanyika hilo.

 

[Nguruvi3]

Hili naweza kusema jibu litakuwa ni kuwa Chama cha Siasa kina locus standi kwenye kesi ya uchaguzi........hili la Arusha Mjini Chama cha Mapinduzi hakikuwa mlalamikaji na wala hakikujiweka kama amicus curie na hivyo hatujui msimamo wake kwenye ile kesi ni nini.

Batilda Buriani alitakiwa kufungua hiyo kesi yeye mwenyewe na kama kulikuwa na kundi la wanawake ambao nao waliamini kuwa kweli Lema alisema maneno ya kuwadhalilisha basi na wao wangejiunganisha kwenye kesi hiyo. Lakini halikufanyika hilo.

Ahsante,umefafanua vema sana. Hii ndio hasa hoja niliyomaanisha katika bandiko langu la awali.
Key words, locus standi and amicus curiae.

Kwa wale wenye hoja kuwa hili ni suala la public interest na kwamba there's infringement of voters right, nina panua mjadala kidogo kwa kuuliza kwanini mbunge anayechaguliwa na wananchi (kwa public interest) anaweza kupoteza ubunge kwa kupitia chama chake na si wananchi ! Je, hapo public interest imelindwa na voters wamepewa haki kama tunaoyoona wamenyimwa na CA of Tz.

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

Kwa wale wenye hoja kuwa hili ni suala la public interest na kwamba there's infringement of voters right, nina panua mjadala kidogo kwa kuuliza kwanini mbunge anayechaguliwa na wananchi (kwa public interest) anaweza kupoteza ubunge kwa kupitia chama chake na si wananchi ! Je, hapo public interest imelindwa na voters wamepewa haki kama tunaoyoona wamenyimwa na CA of Tz.

Ndiyo maana sehemu zingine kuna recall elections!!!!!

 

[Zakumi]

Ahsante,umefafanua vema sana. Hii ndio hasa hoja niliyomaanisha katika bandiko langu la awali.
Key words, locus standi and amicus curiae.

Kwa wale wenye hoja kuwa hili ni suala la public interest na kwamba there's infringement of voters right, nina panua mjadala kidogo kwa kuuliza kwanini mbunge anayechaguliwa na wananchi (kwa public interest) anaweza kupoteza ubunge kwa kupitia chama chake na si wananchi ! Je, hapo public interest imelindwa na voters wamepewa haki kama tunaoyoona wamenyimwa na CA of Tz.

Infringement of vote's rights ni kosa la jinai. Hivyo jamuhuri inaweza kufungua mashtaka. Na vilevile wananchi wanaweza kufungua mashtaka ya madai.

Kwa Tanzania sijawahi kusikia mtu amekwenda jela au kushtakiwa na jamuhuri kwa infringement of vote's rights. Hivyo siku zote tunategemea mashtaka ya madai kutenda haki.

Kuhusu upanuzi wako wa mjadala, ni lazima turudi kwenye madhumuni ya katiba yetu. Katiba ya Tanzania ilitungwa kwa madhumuni ya kujenga taifa la kijamaa. Hivyo taasisi za kisheria na misingi ya katiba iliwekwa nyuma na kujali nadharia za chama. Hivyo haki za raia au wapiga kura bado ziko chini ya vyama vya kisiasa. Hivyo kuna matatizo.

Mahakama sio kazi yake kurekebisha katiba au sheria za nchi. Ni kazi ya bunge na rais. Na vilevile sisi wananchi tunaweza kwenda mahakama na kufungua kesi za kuonyesha kuwa vipengele vya katiba, maamuzi ya serikali na vyombo vyake yanatunyima au yanaweza kutunyima haki zetu za kimsingi.

 

[Mzee Mwanakijiji]

Ngoja niwaambie miye ninachoona kizuri hapa - na CDM wanaweza kukitumia vizuri - ni suala la kutoandikisha wapiga kura kwa uchaguzi mdogo. Wale wanaofikisha miaka 18 au wengine ambao hawakuwemo kwenye daftari hilo tangu 2010 wanaposhindwa kupiga kura kwa sababu ya kutokuandikishwa wanaweza kufungua kesi mahakamani kwani haki yao kama wapiga kura inavunjwa.

 

[EMT]

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

😀

Katiba inasema kuwa mtu yoyote anaweza kufungua kesi kuitetea na kuilinda siyo tuu katiba bali pia sheria nyingine. Sheria nyingine ndo kama hizo za uchaguzi.

Kama kweli una nia ya kushinda kesi, then you are going to use the strongest legal arguments as possible. Lakini kama unataka kufungua kesi for the sake of it, then you’re not really going to give a damn which law to use to defend your case.

Being a lawyer is not about knowing the law but where to find the law. Sasa kama wewe umeona sheria ya uchaguzi ndiyo unayoweza kutumia kwenye arguments zako, mie nitaitafuta the mother of all laws and which is superior to yours.

Nafikiri hoja zako ziko kinadharia zaidi. Kama basi voter awe na haki ya kumshtaki aliyeshinda uchaguzi, pia voter awe na haki ya kumtetea aliyeshinda uchaguzi.

Kwamba kama kuna mpiga kura anaona aliyeshinda uchaguzi ameonewa kwa kufuguliwa kesi basi huyo mpiga kura awe na haki kuomba kuunganishwa kwenye kesi kama mlalamikiwa.

 

[EMT]

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

Ndiyo maana nimekuwa nikiuliza tokea mwanzo what does public interest actually mean?

Ni vigezo gani huwa vinatumika kujua kama a certain matter is of public interest?

Of course, public interest cannot be equated with material the public or the media may find interesting.

Matters which have, or might, in the daily affairs of a community attract public attention may not necessarily be ones which are for the benefit (or of serious concern) of the public.

However, whilst the public interest will usually reside in more than one person, it is possible that the interests of one person may constitute a valid public interest factor which can be applied at a broader level.

So, in certain issues, public attention may be used as an indication that an issue is of public interest.

BTW is it the same thing to say that a matter is "in the public interest" or "of the public interest"?

 

[EMT]

EMT;

Sikuifatilia hii kesi na sijuhi mengi kuhusiana nayo. Kitu cha kwanza mtu yoyote ana uhuru wa kupeleka kesi mahakamani, hususa ni kesi za madai. Hivyo uamuzi wa mahakama uliotolewa kuhusu uchaguzi wa Arusha hauzuii mtanzania yoyote yule kufungua kesi inayofanana na hii.

Kufungua kesi ni tofauti na kushinda hiyo kesi. Mtanzania yoyote anaweza kufungua kesi kama hii, but whether his/her claims will be successful is entirely a different matter.

Pili, mahakama inatoa hukumu kutokana ushahidi na vielelezo vilivyokubaliwa kutumika mahakamani. Sio kazi ya mahakama kufanya upelelezi au utafiti wa vielelezo vya kutumika kwenye kesi au watu wa kutoa ushahidi. Hivyo basi mtu anaweza kuwa na kesi nzuri lakini upande wake ukishindwa kutoa ushahidi na vielelezo vya kutosha, basi mahakama inaweza kutupilia mbali kesi.

Mara nyingi kwa emotions zetu, nimeona watu wengi hapa JF wakiitaka mahakama kufanya uchunguzi wa kutafuta ushahidi. Hiyo sio kazi ya mahakama na ikifanya hivyo itaondoa uhuru wake.

Vilevile kila kosa lina uzito wake na sehemu yake. Kutumia lugha ya kejeli au matusi katika kampeni na kutumia vitendo visivyokubalika wakati wa uchaguzi kama vile kuzuia watu kupiga kura vina uzito tofauti. Hivyo mahakama inaangalia uzito wa makosa na athari zake katika uchaguzi.

You're absolutely right. This is all to do with the adversarial system we use. Tofauti na inquisitorial system in which the role of the judge is central, in adversarial system, the judge's role ni kama ya refa tuu. The parties plays the game. Atakayeshinda ni yule ambaye ana strong legal argument and robust evidence.

In adversarial system, kinachotafutwa siyo ukweli. The judge is not interesting on who is saying the truth, but who has strong legal arguments backed up with robust evidence.

Kwa hiyo inawezekana kabisa kuwa walalamikaji kwenye kesi ya Lema walikuwa wanasema ukweli, but lacked legal arguments to support their claim, i.e. locus standi.

Tukirudi kwenye kesi husika, hata Marekani hakuna uhuru kamili wa mahakama. Kwa namna moja au nyingine mahakama zitaendelea kutoa maamuzi yenye upendeleo wa kisiasa.

Kesi hii ilikuwa kwenye mazingira ya kisiasa toka mwanzo. Kwa maoni yangu binafsi sioni kuwa hii kesi inaweza kutumika kama template ya maamuzi ya kesi zingine. Toka mwanzo public, wahusika katika kesi, na mahakama walikuwa wanajua wanafanya nini.

Maamuzi ya kisiasa yana faida na hasara zake inategemea huko upande gani. CCM au viongozi wa juu wa chama hicho waliweza kuitumia mahakama kwa faida yao kwa kumkomoa Lema au Chadema. Lakini kwa namna nyingine uamuzi wa mahakama kuu umeipa CDM publicity.

Tumbuke pia toka enzi ya Nyerere, mahakama imewavua ubunge watu mbalimbali akiwemo Jaji Warioba. Lakini lakini maamuzi hayo hayakuwa na publicity kubwa kama ya kesi hii.

Hivyo inawezekana maamuzi ya mahakama ya rufaa nayo ni ya kisiasa. Inawezekana CCM imekubali kuwa juhudi za kuivuluga CDM katika maeneo yake inakiongezea chama hicho umaarufu tu. Hivyo labda watawala wamehamua kufanya containment tu. Inawaachia CDM maeneo yao na CCM inajiimarisha katika maeneo yake.

Ni kweli hii kesi ilifunguliwa katika mazingira ya kisiasa. Kama walalamikaji wangeileta kisheria zaidi, wala isingefika Mahakama ya Rufaa.

Rutashubanyuma, EMT, na wengineo;

Katiba ya Tanzania haimtambui mgombea huru. Mgombea wa nafasi ya kisiasa ni lazima awakilishe chama. Kwa mantiki hii mgombea au mtu mwenye nafasi ya kisiasa ni mwanachama wa chama fulani. Na mtu huyo akifukuzwa uanachama au kuacha kwa hiari yake, anapoteza moja kwa moja nafasi zake.

Je kuwa mwanachama wa CCM huko Arusha au chama chenyewe hakiwezi kuwa locus standi?

Sidhani kama kinachoangaliwa ni whether mlalamikaji ni mwanachama wa chama fulani. Kinachoangaliwa ni whether mlalamikaji was a registered voter. Otherwise, kama wakichukua kigezo cha malalamikaji kuwa mwanachana wa chama cha siasa, vipi wale ambao hawana vyama?

 

[EMT]

Hili naweza kusema jibu litakuwa ni kuwa Chama cha Siasa kina locus standi kwenye kesi ya uchaguzi. Hasa pale ambapo kina amini hukumu iliyotolewa ina adverse effect kwake. Kwenye hili la Arusha Mjini Chama cha Mapinduzi hakikuwa mlalamikaji na wala hakikujiweka kama amicus curie na hivyo hatujui msimamo wake kwenye ile kesi ni nini.

Batilda Buriani alitakiwa kufungua hiyo kesi yeye mwenyewe na kama kulikuwa na kundi la wanawake ambao nao waliamini kuwa kweli Lema alisema maneno ya kuwadhalilisha basi na wao wangejiunganisha kwenye kesi hiyo. Lakini halikufanyika hilo.

As it stands, sheria ya uchaguzi inaruhusu chama cha siasa kufungua kesi kama mgombea wao ameshindwa kesi?

Kifungu cha 111(1)(a) cha sheria ya uchaguzi kinasema kuwa mtu ambaye wanaweza ku-petition ni:

(a) mtu ambaye alipiga kura au alikuwa na haki ya kupiga kura kwenye uchaguzi husika;

(b) mtu ambaye anadai kuwa alikuwa na haki ya kuwa-nominated au kuchaguliwa kwenye huo uchaguzi;

(c) mtu anayedai kuwa alikuwa mgombea kwenye huo uchaguzi; na

(d) Mwanasheria Mkuu wa serikali.

Nakumbuka baada ya Kafumu kusema hatakata rufaa, CCM walisema watakata rufaa kama chama.

Unless kuna sheria ningine itakayowaruhusu, CCM will be facing the same problem.

HAlafu kwenye hii kesi ya Lema kama kweli kesi ilikuwa na public interest, si ingekuwa bora zaidi kama mwanasheria mkuu wa serikali angefungua kesi?

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

Ndiyo maana nimekuwa nikiuliza tokea mwanzo what does public interest actually mean?

What does it mean to you? Or it doesn't mean a thing as far as you are concerned?

Ni vigezo gani huwa vinatumika kujua kama a certain matter is of public interest?

Kutumika na nani? Mahakama ama?

Of course, public interest cannot be equated with material the public or the media may find interesting.

Matters which have, or might, in the daily affairs of a community attract public attention may not necessarily be ones which are for the benefit (or of serious concern) of the public.

Here you seem to at least have a grasp of what a matter of public interest is!!

However, whilst the public interest will usually reside in more than one person, it is possible that the interests of one person may constitute a valid public interest factor which can be applied at a broader level.

Maybe...

So, in certain issues, public attention may be used as an indication that an issue is of public interest.

Possibly...

BTW is it the same thing to say that a matter is "in the public interest" or "of the public interest"?

Same difference to me. What about you?

 

[EMT]

[video=youtube_share;MbRCCUPbltM]http://youtu.be/MbRCCUPbltM[/video]

 

[Rutashubanyuma]

Rutashubanyuma,


..umepatia. I made some WRONG conclusions!!!


..after scanning thru' the court ruling, actually not all of it, I came out with a different conclusion.


..kutokana na posting yako namba # 17 naweza kusema kuna mahali mahakama imepatia na kuna mahali imekosea.


..kwa mfano: kama wajibu rufani walishindwa[through technicalities] kuwasilisha ushahidi wa ku-prove kuwa ni wapiga kura wa Arusha mjini kwanini mahakama ikubali madai yao kwamba waliathirika na kampeni pamoja na matokeo ya uchaguzi huo?? mahakama ilipaswa kuwa na USHAHIDI huo MKONONI[on the record]ili iweze kuutumia/kuu-consider ktk hukumu yake.




Second the petition was not brought under Article 26(2) of the Constitution which permits any person to bring a public interest litigation





..zaidi, kifungu nilichoweka hapo juu ni MUHIMU kukizingatia ktk kuiangalia huku hii. nimeona umeweka msisitizo kwenye vifungu vingine lakini hiki umekiacha.


NB:


..ninachoweza kusema ni kwamba majaji wamefanya makosa ya hapa na pale, lakini in the end they made the RIGHT CALL na HAKI IMETENDEKA.

JokaKuu Tatizo siyo kesi ilifunguliwa chini ya kifungu kipi pekee. Ni kweli wahusika ili kudai haki chini ya Ibara 26 (2) ilitoa mwanya kwa Mahakama ya Rufaa kuwabeza lakini kwa manufaa ya umma walipaswa wapitie vielelezo vya ushahidi ambavyo Jaji Mujulizi hakuvipiti kama zile video ili tujue madai ya walalamikaji wa mwanzo yalikuwa ni nini?

Walichofanya Mahakama ya RUfaa ni kutunyima nafasi ya kuelewa Mahakama ya Rufaa ina msimamo upi kuhusiana na matumizi ya lugha zenye mushkeli kwenye kampeni..........mamlaka ya kuutathmini ushaidi husika wanayo lakini sijui ni uvivu hata haieleweki............na mbaya zaidi sasa wansema hata kama kesi hiyo ingefunguliwa chini ya Ibara 26(2) bado wapinga rufani hawana mahali pa kusimamia kwenye suala hilo kutokana na tafsiri ambazo walizitoa....................hii ni aibu na kuna kila sababu ya wapinga rufani kuirudia mahakama ya Rufaa kurekebisha hii hukumu kwa manufaa ya jamii nzima.....................Mahakamani siyo mahali pa kutunga sheria au kzitafsiri sheria visivyo

 

[Rutashubanyuma]

NB:


..ninachoweza kusema ni kwamba majaji wamefanya makosa ya hapa na pale, lakini in the end they made the RIGHT CALL na HAKI IMETENDEKA.

JokaKuu Haya mahitimisho ni ya kihisia tu huwezi kuyafikia kama hujui zile video vya ushahidi ambazo jaji Mujulizi hakutaka kuzichambua na kuzitolea maamuzi zinasema nini.............kesi yote iko pale

 

[Rutashubanyuma]

EMT;

Sikuifatilia hii kesi na sijuhi mengi kuhusiana nayo. Kitu cha kwanza mtu yoyote ana uhuru wa kupeleka kesi mahakamani, hususa ni kesi za madai. Hivyo uamuzi wa mahakama uliotolewa kuhusu uchaguzi wa Arusha hauzuii mtanzania yoyote yule kufungua kesi inayofanana na hii.

Pili, mahakama inatoa hukumu kutokana ushahidi na vielelezo vilivyokubaliwa kutumika mahakamani. Sio kazi ya mahakama kufanya upelelezi au utafiti wa vielelezo vya kutumika kwenye kesi au watu wa kutoa ushahidi. Hivyo basi mtu anaweza kuwa na kesi nzuri lakini upande wake ukishindwa kutoa ushahidi na vielelezo vya kutosha, basi mahakama inaweza kutupilia mbali kesi.

Mara nyingi kwa emotions zetu, nimeona watu wengi hapa JF wakiitaka mahakama kufanya uchunguzi wa kutafuta ushahidi. Hiyo sio kazi ya mahakama na ikifanya hivyo itaondoa uhuru wake.

Vilevile kila kosa lina uzito wake na sehemu yake. Kutumia lugha ya kejeli au matusi katika kampeni na kutumia vitendo visivyokubalika wakati wa uchaguzi kama vile kuzuia watu kupiga kura vina uzito tofauti. Hivyo mahakama inaangalia uzito wa makosa na athari zake katika uchaguzi.

Tukirudi kwenye kesi husika, hata Marekani hakuna uhuru kamili wa mahakama. Kwa namna moja au nyingine mahakama zitaendelea kutoa maamuzi yenye upendeleo wa kisiasa.

Kesi hii ilikuwa kwenye mazingira ya kisiasa toka mwanzo. Kwa maoni yangu binafsi sioni kuwa hii kesi inaweza kutumika kama template ya maamuzi ya kesi zingine. Toka mwanzo public, wahusika katika kesi, na mahakama walikuwa wanajua wanafanya nini.

Maamuzi ya kisiasa yana faida na hasara zake inategemea huko upande gani. CCM au viongozi wa juu wa chama hicho waliweza kuitumia mahakama kwa faida yao kwa kumkomoa Lema au Chadema. Lakini kwa namna nyingine uamuzi wa mahakama kuu umeipa CDM publicity.

Tumbuke pia toka enzi ya Nyerere, mahakama imewavua ubunge watu mbalimbali akiwemo Jaji Warioba. Lakini lakini maamuzi hayo hayakuwa na publicity kubwa kama ya kesi hii.

Hivyo inawezekana maamuzi ya mahakama ya rufaa nayo ni ya kisiasa. Inawezekana CCM imekubali kuwa juhudi za kuivuluga CDM katika maeneo yake inakiongezea chama hicho umaarufu tu. Hivyo labda watawala wamehamua kufanya containment tu. Inawaachia CDM maeneo yao na CCM inajiimarisha katika maeneo yake.

Zakumi Hizi zako ni porojo za kisiasa hazina uhusiano na mada. Mengi unayoyaongelea tayari huu uamuzi umeyakataza lakini wewe unatoa maoni jinsi unavyotaka iwe wakati Mahakama ya Rufaa maamuzi yake yatagusa kesi nyinginezo ambazo wapigakura watazipeleka mahakamani kupinga matokeo na walalamikiwa wataitumia hii hukumu kuiomba mahakama kuu kuzifuta kwa kutumia uamuzi huu na kesi hizo zitafutwa tu hakuna jinsi hadi pale Mahakama ya Rufaa itakapovadili msimamo huu ambao unawazuia wapigakura kuhoji uhalali wa matokeo ya uchaguzi kama yalizingatia sheria ya uchaguzi.

 

[Rutashubanyuma]

I did not mean it in a bad way Rutta... Pardon my misuse of the word 'insinuate'.

AshaDii Be blessed.

 

[Rutashubanyuma]

By Zakumi

Rutashubanyuma, EMT, na wengineo;

Je kuwa mwanachama wa CCM huko Arusha au chama chenyewe hakiwezi kuwa locus standi?

Hili naweza kusema jibu litakuwa ni kuwa Chama cha Siasa kina locus standi kwenye kesi ya uchaguzi. Hasa pale ambapo kina amini hukumu iliyotolewa ina adverse effect kwake. Kwenye hili la Arusha Mjini Chama cha Mapinduzi hakikuwa mlalamikaji na wala hakikujiweka kama amicus curie na hivyo hatujui msimamo wake kwenye ile kesi ni nini.

Batilda Buriani alitakiwa kufungua hiyo kesi yeye mwenyewe na kama kulikuwa na kundi la wanawake ambao nao waliamini kuwa kweli Lema alisema maneno ya kuwadhalilisha basi na wao wangejiunganisha kwenye kesi hiyo. Lakini halikufanyika hilo.

Mzee Mwanakijiji kulingana na huu uamuzi hakuna nafasi ya chama cha siasa kupinga matokeo ya uchaguzi ila mgombea tu..........kwa hiyo ccm wanafikiria nini halina ubavu wa kisheria hapa.

Tatizo la huu mjadala ni hisia za kisiasa zinaingilia na hivyo kufunika........."the larger picture"

Mfano ushindi wa Lema umekuja kwa gharama kubwa kwenye harakati za kupanua demokrasia.......inakuwaje mpigakura asiwe mnufaikaji na matokeo ya kura aliyopiga kama huu siy uendawazimu? mgombeaji anaweza kuwa na sababu zake binafsi kwa nini hataki kwenda mahakamani kupinga matokeo ya uchaguzi lakini mpigakura asiyeridhika na matokeo ya kura yake kuwa imechezewa kusema hana bao....................hiyo ni demokrasia ya wapi