Ashantikingdom
Member
- Dec 22, 2012
- 15
- 2
All this is just complicated.
Thanx Sir for the points of correction and I approve in part what you have posted to me. In fact what you are trying to argue is correct and more practical. I have affirmed the said sections it is well clear that I mislead my mind but I had the same intention. Let us come back to our dispute, Sir our dispute is concerning the power of DPP to substitute a murder case to manslaughter I argue you to confine your mind into the laws "what laws say about the jurisdiction of DPP" refer Section 90-92 of the Criminal Procedure Act. DPP has no power to substitute any case but rather he may discontinue the case until his wishes, he may enter nolle proseque
It is non sense into my mind that Manslaughter and Murder are two distinct offences, It is well understood to every body that these offences have been established in the Penal Code by two separate sections being that the case does not make it two offences. Perhaps we ask our self what was the "Intention of the Parliament" to establish the same offences into two separate sections, 195,196! The other question here is whether one my institute a manslaughter case as a case of first instance. There is no such a procedure under Tanzanian Laws with such a mandate.
To answer the question of " The Intention of the Parliament" I guess the parliament in enacting these offences had a clear and settled mind of which they intended to show the public that it may sometimes happen one to kill the other without guilty intention but the concept here one might find out is that a person has lost his life which is protected under Article 14 of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977 as Amended timely which means that the issue of mens rea is lifted to prosecutor to prove the guilt intention of the killer which is a procedural work ie means logically it is impossible to institute a manslaughter case of which a killer had no guilty intention to kill but rather one may institute a murder case because already a person had died (deceased body) has lost a right to life.
Therefore Sir it is well safe to conclude that the intention of the parliament was to protect the right to life of individuals, the issue of mens rea was left under judicial procedure. So I argue you it is better to look on the course of law leaving away practical issue!
KUKU NI MKUBWA KULIKO YAI!
Nadhani umesahau kuwa Marehemu alimkimbiza lulu na kumkamata kumrudisha ndani kwa nguvu baada ya mtafaruku wa simu aliyopigiwa lulu, hii ni wrong move ambayo marehemu ali- make.ilikuaje aingie chumbani kwa SK?mbona hakupiga kelele ya kuomba msaada alipotaka kubakwa?
Kwa nini unaiita hii Serikali kandamizi? Tetesi niliyoisikia,habari niliyoiona katika gazeti moja la udaku ni kwamba Lulu ataachiwa huru any day now.
Ngoja nami nikuulize halafu nijibu maswali yangu:-
Elizabeth Michael Kimemeta
Mkakati wa Lulu kujitoa kenye makucha ya hii dola kandamizi sasa umeanza kuchipuka pale ambapo mshitakiwa wa hii kesi ya mauaji alipokerwa pale mahakamani alipokuwa akisomewa mashtaka tajwa dhidi yake na hata kunyosha kidole na kutoa sahihisho ya kuwa umri wake ni miaka 17 na wala siyo 18. Kwa kawaida kwenye kesi za mauaji mara ya kwanza husomwa katika mahakama ya hakimu mkaazi na mshitakiwa anayo haki ya kukaa kimya kwa sababu mahakama hiyo haina mamlaka ya kuisikiliza kesi hiyo lakni Lulu aliona aanze kuweka utetezi wake vyema hata katika hatua hiyo ya awali...............
Athari za kisheria za umri wa miaka 17.
Umri huo unamweka Mwendazake -Steven Kanumba- ambaye ana umri wa miaka 28 katika khali mbaya ya kitabia na mwenendo kulingana na sheria ya makosa ya ki9jinai kujamiana pamojana yakuwa kwa vile yeye ni marehemu hawezi kushitakiwa nayo lakini yanapunguza makali ya Lulu kuwa na kesi ya kujibu tajwa.
Umri wa miaka 17 ni binti mtoto na wala siyo mtu mzima hivyo kuwa na mapenzi naye hata kama alipenda iwe hivyo unamgeuze mwendazake kuwa alikuwa anambaka Lulu na hivyo kuweka kesi ya mauaji kuwa na utetezi wa self-defence au Lulu alifanya yoyote yaliyo ndani ya uwezo wake kujitetea dhidi ya mwanaumme mtu mzima tena mwenye umri wa miaka 28 kutaka kumbaka.
Vilevile umri tajwa unamwondolea Lulu adhabu ya kifo endapo mahakama kuu itamtia hatiani kwenye makosa ya mauaji (very unlikely, though- uwezekano wa kutia hatiani ni mdogo sana)na pia kumpa haki ya kuondolewa kwenye lupango ya watu wazima jambo ambalo polisi wetu wameendelea kukiuka haki zake kwa kumchanganya na lupango ya watu wazima. utetezi wa kiawali wa Lulu unakuwa hauna mashiko pale Lulu atakapolalamikia ya kuwa polisi walimlazimisha kumshikilia kwenye lupango ya watu wazima na hivyo kumfanya aghafilike kiakili na hivyo kushindwa kutoa ushahidi sahihi na hivyo kuilazimu mahakama kuutupilia mbali ushahidi wa kiawali na hivyo kumruhusu autoe ushahidi mpya ambao ndiyo huu ninaouchambua hivi sasa.
Lakini kubwa zaidi ni utetezi wa kimazingira ambao Lulu atautoa mahakamani wa kinda wa chini ya miaka 18 utamweka mwendazake katika mazingira ya kiubakaji au kukusudia kumbaka na hivyo utetezi wa self-defence kuwa na uzito wa kipekee. haya ni baadhi tu ya dondoo ambazo Lulu aweza kuzitumia katika kujinasua katika makucha tajwa:-
a) Mwendazake ndiye aliyemwita kuwa ana mazungumzo naye ya haraka usiku wa tukio juu ya tansnia ya filamu. hivyo yeye Luou hakuwa na makusudio ya kwenda kwa kanumba kwa minajili ya kumwuuwa. kumbuka DPP ni lazima athibitishe nia ya kuua ili mahakama imtie hatiani Lulu lakini kama ni kanumba ndiye aliyemwita nia ya Lulu kwenda kwa mwendazake kwa nia tajwa itaoa mbawa kuwa isingewezakana kuwa kama DPP anavyodai.
b) Marafiki wa Lulu watathibitisha ya kuwa wao ndiyo waliokuwa wakimpigia simu na kutaka kujua alikuwa wapi na kwa nini amechelewa. Ushahidi huu wa kimazingira utazidi kubomoa hoja ya polisi ya kuwa Lulu alikwenda kwa mwendazake kwa nia ya kumtoa roho.
c) Lulu atathibitisha mahakamani ya kuwa kanumba siye mpenzi wake na kwa hivyo hoja ya DPP kuwa kulikuwa na ugomvi wa mapenzi kukosa mwelekeo.
d) Lulu atajenga hoja ya kuwa Kanumba alitaka kumbaka na yeye alitumia nguzu za mikono yake kujihami na kutokana na umri wa miaka 17 mahakama lazima ikubaliane naye ukizinatia mazingira yenyewe. Yawaje mtu mzima amkaribishe binti mdogo wa chini ya miak 17 chumbani mwake kama lengo siyo kumbaka? yawaje kanumba akutwe hana nguo yuko uchi wa mnyama na binti mdogo hivyo? Kwa hiyo ahata kama lulu alitumia silaha iliyokuwemo chumbani kujilinda mahakama itamp nufaa ya "benefit of doubt" na hivyo kuukubali utetezi wake.
e) Lulu atadai kilichomwangusha kanumba chini na kukosa fahamu hakina uhusiano na yeye bali ni matatizo yake ya kiafya na atatumia taarifa ya madaktari wa Muhimbili kuthibitisha ya kuwa kilichomtoa roho mwendazake ni mshtuko mkubwa katika ubongo wake ambao haukusababishwa na mahjeraha aya mwilini mwake ambayo hata hivyo hayapo. mwendazake hakuwa na jeraha lolote kuonyesha lingeweza kumsababishia mshtuko tajwa.
kw aushahidi huu na mwingineo mwingi, hakuna Jaji ambaye atakubali kuchafua heshima yake kwenye jamii na kuhalalisha mabinti wadogo wafanyiwe unyama hata kama unyama huo unafanywa na aliyekuwa mcheza failamu nambari moja hapa nchini. Hivyo basi mahakama itaamua Lulu hana kesi ya kujibu na mwndazake ndiye aliyejenga mazingira kwa yote yaliyomkua na hapaswi kumtupia lawama mtoto mdogo aliyechini ya miaka 18.. Aidha ni jukumu la watu wazima kuwa mfano wa malezi ya watoto wadogo badala ya wao kuwarubuni na kuwafunza namna ya kuyaharibu masiha ya watoto hao kupitia makosa na jinai ya ubakaji.