Revealed: The cost of paying Dowans
By ThisDay Reporter
19th January 2011
NATIONAL ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT'S MORAL AND ETHICAL STANDING IN JEOPARDY
AS PRESSURE MOUNTS TO MAKE HUGE PAYOUT FOR AN ILLEGAL POWER CONTRACT
THE decision by the Ministry of Energy and Minerals to agree to pay Dowans Holdings SA/Dowans Tanzania Limited a staggering $65 million plus interest (approx. 100 billion/-) for an illegal power generation contract could have far-reaching and potentially devastating consequences for President Jakaya Kikwete's government, it has been revealed.
The Richmond/Dowans contract with the state-run Tanzania Electric Supply Company (TANESCO) was terminated following recommendations of a parliamentary committee chaired by the Kyela Member of Parliament, Dr. Harrison Mwakyembe, that probed the dubious power generation deal signed in 2006.
The report of Mwakyembe's committee, which was unanimously endorsed by the National Assembly, called among other things for the termination of the contract because it contravened the Public Procurement Act of 2004.
After carefully studying the parliamentary resolution, a team of legal experts at the Attorney General's Chambers concurred with the Bunge recommendations and the contract was duly terminated.
But in an unexpected move, the same Attorney General's chambers has now reversed its initial decision and advised the government to now pay Dowans more than $65 million for the same illegal contract.
"If the government pays Dowans, it means it has effectively gone against its own decision and that of the Tanzanian Parliament to declare the contract null and void and call for its termination," said a senior legal expert in government.
"Parliament declared that the Dowans contract was illegal. A parliamentary resolution to this effect was unanimously approved by all lawmakers. Any payments by the government to Dowans would contravene a valid parliamentary resolution."
There are sharp divisions among senior government officials, including Cabinet ministers, over a controversial ruling of the International Court of Arbitration (ICC) that ordered TANESCO to make questionable payments in favour of Dowans.
The Minister for Energy and Minerals, William Ngeleja, surprisingly announced that the government had agreed to pay Dowans as per the ICC ruling without even seeking prior Cabinet approval.
Under normal circumstances, Ngeleja would need to get the approval of Cabinet before making any final decision unilaterally regarding such a massive financial liability to the government.
Apart from creating divisions in the top echelons of the Kikwete administration and eroding the government's moral and ethical standing, the Dowans saga could have a devastating blow on the nation's economy.
"The Dowans situation has already caused shock waves in interbank trading. The market has panicked, thus pushing the shilling downwards towards further depreciation," a trader at a state-run bank told THISDAY.
Commercial banks quoted the shilling at 1,485/1,490 to the dollar last Thursday compared with 1,469/1,475 at the close of trading the previous week.
"There is a scarcity of dollars in the market right now. Therefore, an outflow of 65 million dollars from the market will mean the shilling could slide sharply to 1,500 or even 1,800 levels."
"Paying Dowans will mean exporting $65 million out of the country. This will seriously hurt Tanzania's economy."
A weaker currency could push up the inflation rate and undermine the government's goal of achieving a 7.2 percent economic growth this year.
"There is one golden rule about weak currencies – they affect the economies of poor countries like Tanzania that are import-oriented and carry huge debts," said the bank trader.
"This means that Tanzanians could end up paying more for basics such as food, consumer goods, kerosene and petrol, as a direct result of the Dowans payment. This is something that any sensible government should avoid."
While some government officials are seemingly in a rush to pay Dowans, the Minister for Finance, Mustafa Mkulo, has declared that government coffers have already dried up.
It has been suggested that Ngeleja's ministry and TANESCO could make re-allocations of their existing budgets and try to raise the $65 million, which government bureaucrats admit would be a difficult thing to achieve.
"TANESCO is cash-strapped and has huge debts. Where will the money come from to pay Dowans for a contract that is illegal in the first place?" Asked one well-placed government official.
Several government development initiatives, such as construction of roads and other infrastructure projects, have now been put on hold because of budget constraints.
Some analysts warn that the government could land in a political quagmire if it persists in paying Dowans for the illegal contract.
"Any payments to Dowans could have a major political backlash on the government. Parliament will need an explanation on why the government chose to disregard a valid Bunge resolution on the matter and there is growing public resentment on the move," said one political commentator.
“Donor countries are closely watching the government's next move and could free funds for the 2011/12 budget if it is revealed that the government squandered $65 million on an illegal contract.”
Saturday, February 5, 2011
SHERIA ZA KIMILA TANZANIA/CUSTOMARY LAW CASES
CUSTOMARY LAW CASES
5/2/2011
1. ADAMU MTONDO v. LIKUNA OMARI (1968) HCD 289 – Hamlyn, J.
Divorce –Islamic Law – Divorce Normally Must be Pronounced three times – Revocation of Divorce – Unaffected by Fact Dowry not fully paid.
Appelant orally pronounced a divorce from his wife. Somewhat less than a month later, presumably in a period of “tuhr”, he orally revoked the divorce. The PC held that the divorce was complete and, on appeal, the DC affirmed acting on the advice of an assessor that the revocation was of no effect because the dowry had not been fully paid at that time. Neither court specified the school of Muslim law which the parties adhered.
Held:
1. Under the more common interpretations, divorce is effected only by three pronouncements and was not effected here, where only one pronouncement was given. Trial courts should specify the school of Muslim law which is applicable; in the absence of any indication to the contrary, it should be presumed that the more common interpretation applies.
2. Even if the single pronouncement was effective, the fact that the dowry had not been fully paid did not affect the validity of the revocation and the oral divorce was rescinded. Appeal allowed and respondent declared to be still the lawful wife of appellant.
2. MAHUNDYA MBURUMATARE v. MUGENDI NYAKANGARA (1969) HCD 7
26/11/2968 - Seaton, J.
Customary marriage – Validity depends upon the issue of a marriage certificate.
The respondent claimed compensation for adultery allegedly committed by his alleged wife. The question turned on the proof of marriage. The respondent argued that he married the woman in 1964, and that the marriage certificate was not regarded as necessary under the local customs.
Held:
1. The case falls to be determined under the Declaration of Customary Law, GN 279 OF 1963. Sec. 86 provides that the marriage must be legalized by the issue of a marriage certificate. The traditional ceremonies have no legal force.
2. IN the instant case, besides the non-production of the marriage certificate there were other discrepancies in evidence which indicated that there was no marriage between the respondent and the woman. Appeal allowed.
3. MATIKO CHABHA v. MATHIAS MWITA (1969) HCD 8 - Saidi, J. – 4/11/1968
Divorce – Return of dowry – When permissible.
This was a claim for the return of dowry. The parties were married under customary law, and the Husband had paid dowry. On divorce, normally dowry is not returnable once the children have been born, which was the case here. However, the wife has since remarried, and her father had received a second set of dowry.
Held:
1. Under Clause 52B of the Customary Declaration Order 1963 the claim for the return of dowry b y the husband on dissolution of the marriage cannot be entertained if the wife has borne him children. The Declaration does not touch on the relevant issue raised in the instant case, namely whether it is fair to bar the husband from recovering the dowry or a proportionate part thereof where the wife who has borne him children is divorced and having been re-married dowry is paid again to the father. This way a father could get several sets of dowry for the same daughter. In such a case the former husband is entitled to receive a substantial part of the dowry he has paid.
Note from Blogger:
With due respect to his Lordship, this decision makes the wife look exactly like a commodity on the marketplace and not a human being. It is not fair and I think this was an erroneous decision, even then (1968). The dowry from the first husband or any subsequent husband for that matter was not supposed to be paid, with or without the appearance of children in the marriage!
4. RALANG MUMANYI v WAMBURA MWITA (1969) HCD 9 – Seaton, J. –
The appellant sued the defendant in the primary court in North Mara District for the return of bride wealth. There was evidence that after several years of marriage, the plaintiff’s wife (the defendant’s daughter) had deserted the plaintiff, but there was no evidence that the plaintiff had obtained a divorce. At the trial the plaintiff and the defendant gave evidence but were not allowed to cross-examine one another. It was not recorded whether or not they were allowed to call other witnesses. No issues were framed by the court, nor were the opinion of the assessors recorded. The trial court gave judgment for the plaintiff, relying on ss. 133, 134 and 140 of Law of Persons GN 279/1963, which provide that desertion is a ground for divorce and that the Husband may claim divorce and seek a return of bride wealth without legal obligation to search for his wife.
HELD:
1. After the Plaint had been read and the defendant’s statement in reply recorded, the court should have framed the issues in the case and determined whether or not the defendant admitted or denied the plaintiff’s allegations. [Citing r. 44-47 Magistrates Courts [Civil Procedure in Primary Court] Rules, GN 310 of 1964.
2. The trial court should have recorded whether or not the parties had been given opportunity to cross-examine and to call witnesses.
3. Although a primary court has discretion as to whether or not to sit with assessors [s.8 MCA Cap. 537], once the court decided to sit with assessors it must record their opinions and, if he disagrees with them, give reasons for his disagreement.
4. The section of the law of Persons cited by the trial court must be read together with s. 37A which provides that bride wealth may be required to be returned “in case of divorce.” In the present case, there was no evidence of a divorce and the award cannot be sustained.
5. ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL, ZANZIBAR, ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE OF TOPAN KARSN RAMJI alias RASHID KARSAN RAMJI, DECEASED v. KULSAM FADHIL MUSSA & 5 ors. (1969) HCD 80 - 7/2/1967 – Kimicha, C.J.
The parties, children of the deceased, claimed a piece of property formerly belonging to the deceased. The Administrator General is the plaintiff in form only, belonging the action in court for instruction on the question of which of the disputants should receive the property. Mohamed Hussein claims the property by way of a deed of gift, made to him by the deceased, his father, in 1960. The deed gift was duly witnessed, but the deceased died without registering it as required by Zanzibar law. Mohamed’s sister argued that the gift was invalid for non-registration, and therefore that the property was properly part of the deceased’s estate, to be distributed among all the heirs.
One Ahmed Juma testified that he had been a tenant on the property since 1960, that the deceased in 1960 told him that he had given the property to his son and that the rent should thenceforth be paid to the son, and that he had since that time paid the rent to the son who issued receipts in his own name. One of the witnesses to the deed of gift testified as to its genuineness. The parties were Muslims, members of the Shia sect.
HELD:-
1. The validity of gifts and the distribution of estates is governed by Muslim law, where the deceased was a Muslim. “In civil matters the law of Islam is and is is hereby declared to be the fundamental law of the republic, under Cap. 3, s.7.
2. Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law, para 150 (3), states: “If it is proved by oral evidence that a gift was competed as required by law, it is immaterial that the donor has also executed a deed of gift, but the deed has not been registered as required by the Registration Act.”
3. According to Shia Law, the requirements for a valid gift are:-
(a) A declaration of the gift b y the donor;
(b) An acceptance of the gift by the donee; and
(c) A delivery of possession to the donee. Since these requirements were complied with here, the gift was valid, and Mohamed Hussein is entitled to the property.
7. SHABANI v. SOFIA (1971) HCD 5 -/11/1970 - Kwikima, AG. J.
The respondent who used to live in concubinage with the appellant’s father sued the appellant for compensation of shs.9.120/= for evicting her from the deceased’s house which she used to occupy in his lifetime. The primary court dismissed the claim because the respondent and the deceased were Muslims and according to Islamic law, a concubine has no right to inherit part of the estate which a legally wedded wife is entitled to. Even under Chagga law which could be applicable were the respondent married to the deceased, Chagga widows do not inherit when there are male issues surviving as in this case. The district magistrate felt that the respondent was entitled to some of the estate after staying with the appellant’s father for 19 years and awarded her a quarter of the amount claimed.
HELD:-
1. With due respect this decision cannot be in accordance with the law. In suing the appellant, the respondent necessarily meant that the appellant had wronged her by depriving her part of the inheritance. How could this be if she was not entitled to any? Both Chagga and Islamic law exclude her from inheriting. According to Chagga law, she would not inherit in the presence of the appellant even if she was legally wedded to the deceased. She could not inherit under Islamic law either, being only the concubine of the deceased.
2. As this suit is not an administration of deceased’s estate matter, the appellant cannot be sued by the respondent. “Compensation” is payable by the husbands who divorce their wives or men who forsake their concubines with whom they have worked together and accumulated some wealth to be shared. In this case the appellant was the son of the man who kept the respondent as his concubine. The respondent could not therefore be heard to sue him.
3. Appeal allowed.
8. MANYASA v. MWANAKOMBO (1971) HCD 13- 20/10/1070 - Georges, C.J.
A divorced wife sued the husband for maintenance of three children. The husband died before the case was finalized. The district magistrate substituted the surviving widow for the deceased husband and made an order of maintenance against her at the rate of shs.50/= per month. On appeal, the learned judge set aside the order because the liability for maintaining the children of the broken marriage rested on the deceased husband and not on his surviving widow. The judge however, awarded the children a house allegedly owned by the deceased. When the divorced wife sought to execute the order, a claimant appeared who asserted that the house was his as it had been transferred to him years ago b the deceased. The chief Justice in this Inspection Note outlined the proper procedure to be followed,
HELD:
1. The divorced wife should have been advised to apply for execution under the MCXA [Civil Procedure in Primary Courts] Rules, 1964, s. 58. The Claimant could then appear and show cause why he should not be evicted. If the court rejects the claim, then the matter would be at an end, the order executed. If the court holds that the property in fact belongs to the claimant, then the divorced wife can appeal if she wishes.
9. IN RE: SALUM OMARI MKEREMI (1973) LRT 80, Mfalila, Ag. J. 14/5/1973.
1. The Law applicable to a “deceased native’s estate” [under Cap 30] is the tribal customary law of the deceased unless he had professed the Mohammedan religion and the court is satisfied from the written or oral declaration of the deceased, or his acts or manner of life, that he intended his estate to be administered according to Mohammedan law.
2. The deceased manner and way of life was far removed from his tribal customs, consequently the deceased estate should be administered in accordance with Mohammedan law of succession and not Hehe customary law of succession.
3. A Christian widow can inherit in the estate of her deceased Mohammedan husband and take 1/8th share as provided for by Mohammedan law as long as their marriage was one recognized under that law. [Administrator-General applied u/s 88(1) (b) of Probate and Administration of Estates Act.]
Page 354 of the HCD Casebook: Mrs. Nelly Mkeremi according to the above para. is Kitabia, therefore her civil marriage under the Marriage Ordinance to the deceased was a valid marriage recognized by Mohammedan law. She is therefore a “wife” under that law. If this is so then she is entitled to her share as a wife in the deceased’s estate. MULLA:- P. 234, Para. 259:
“a Mohammedan may contract a valid marriage not only with a Mohammedan women, but also with a Kitabia, that is a Jewess or a Christian, but not with an Idolatress or a fire-worshiper.”
s.19 (4) of JALO? Or Probate? - Notwithstanding any tribal or Mohammedan law to the contrary (b) a person shall not be deprived of a right to succession to property by reason of that person having renounced or having been excluded from the communion of any religion.
10. MANUGWA LUTALAMILA & 2 ors. V. MARTHA LUTALAMILA (1982) TLR 98 – Mfalila, J.
See MCA, sec. 320/1964.
1. In the administration of estates where the law applicable is customary law the Chief Justice is empowered u/s 14 (2) of MCA, 1963 to confer jurisdiction upon Primary Courts to administer the same.
2. Where the matter in issue is inheritance in customary law, then irrespective of the nature of the property involved, the Primary Court has jurisdiction unless the High Court has directed under section 88 of the Probate and Administration Ordinance that the provisions of that ordinance shall apply to the estate in question.
3. Under s.57 (1) of MCA, 1963 THE District Court is denied original jurisdiction to determine a matter of inheritance arising out of customary law.
4. The District Magistrate was wrong in declaring the proceedings in the Primary Court null and void and quashing them; he should have decided the appeal on merits. Order accordingly.
5/2/2011
1. ADAMU MTONDO v. LIKUNA OMARI (1968) HCD 289 – Hamlyn, J.
Divorce –Islamic Law – Divorce Normally Must be Pronounced three times – Revocation of Divorce – Unaffected by Fact Dowry not fully paid.
Appelant orally pronounced a divorce from his wife. Somewhat less than a month later, presumably in a period of “tuhr”, he orally revoked the divorce. The PC held that the divorce was complete and, on appeal, the DC affirmed acting on the advice of an assessor that the revocation was of no effect because the dowry had not been fully paid at that time. Neither court specified the school of Muslim law which the parties adhered.
Held:
1. Under the more common interpretations, divorce is effected only by three pronouncements and was not effected here, where only one pronouncement was given. Trial courts should specify the school of Muslim law which is applicable; in the absence of any indication to the contrary, it should be presumed that the more common interpretation applies.
2. Even if the single pronouncement was effective, the fact that the dowry had not been fully paid did not affect the validity of the revocation and the oral divorce was rescinded. Appeal allowed and respondent declared to be still the lawful wife of appellant.
2. MAHUNDYA MBURUMATARE v. MUGENDI NYAKANGARA (1969) HCD 7
26/11/2968 - Seaton, J.
Customary marriage – Validity depends upon the issue of a marriage certificate.
The respondent claimed compensation for adultery allegedly committed by his alleged wife. The question turned on the proof of marriage. The respondent argued that he married the woman in 1964, and that the marriage certificate was not regarded as necessary under the local customs.
Held:
1. The case falls to be determined under the Declaration of Customary Law, GN 279 OF 1963. Sec. 86 provides that the marriage must be legalized by the issue of a marriage certificate. The traditional ceremonies have no legal force.
2. IN the instant case, besides the non-production of the marriage certificate there were other discrepancies in evidence which indicated that there was no marriage between the respondent and the woman. Appeal allowed.
3. MATIKO CHABHA v. MATHIAS MWITA (1969) HCD 8 - Saidi, J. – 4/11/1968
Divorce – Return of dowry – When permissible.
This was a claim for the return of dowry. The parties were married under customary law, and the Husband had paid dowry. On divorce, normally dowry is not returnable once the children have been born, which was the case here. However, the wife has since remarried, and her father had received a second set of dowry.
Held:
1. Under Clause 52B of the Customary Declaration Order 1963 the claim for the return of dowry b y the husband on dissolution of the marriage cannot be entertained if the wife has borne him children. The Declaration does not touch on the relevant issue raised in the instant case, namely whether it is fair to bar the husband from recovering the dowry or a proportionate part thereof where the wife who has borne him children is divorced and having been re-married dowry is paid again to the father. This way a father could get several sets of dowry for the same daughter. In such a case the former husband is entitled to receive a substantial part of the dowry he has paid.
Note from Blogger:
With due respect to his Lordship, this decision makes the wife look exactly like a commodity on the marketplace and not a human being. It is not fair and I think this was an erroneous decision, even then (1968). The dowry from the first husband or any subsequent husband for that matter was not supposed to be paid, with or without the appearance of children in the marriage!
4. RALANG MUMANYI v WAMBURA MWITA (1969) HCD 9 – Seaton, J. –
The appellant sued the defendant in the primary court in North Mara District for the return of bride wealth. There was evidence that after several years of marriage, the plaintiff’s wife (the defendant’s daughter) had deserted the plaintiff, but there was no evidence that the plaintiff had obtained a divorce. At the trial the plaintiff and the defendant gave evidence but were not allowed to cross-examine one another. It was not recorded whether or not they were allowed to call other witnesses. No issues were framed by the court, nor were the opinion of the assessors recorded. The trial court gave judgment for the plaintiff, relying on ss. 133, 134 and 140 of Law of Persons GN 279/1963, which provide that desertion is a ground for divorce and that the Husband may claim divorce and seek a return of bride wealth without legal obligation to search for his wife.
HELD:
1. After the Plaint had been read and the defendant’s statement in reply recorded, the court should have framed the issues in the case and determined whether or not the defendant admitted or denied the plaintiff’s allegations. [Citing r. 44-47 Magistrates Courts [Civil Procedure in Primary Court] Rules, GN 310 of 1964.
2. The trial court should have recorded whether or not the parties had been given opportunity to cross-examine and to call witnesses.
3. Although a primary court has discretion as to whether or not to sit with assessors [s.8 MCA Cap. 537], once the court decided to sit with assessors it must record their opinions and, if he disagrees with them, give reasons for his disagreement.
4. The section of the law of Persons cited by the trial court must be read together with s. 37A which provides that bride wealth may be required to be returned “in case of divorce.” In the present case, there was no evidence of a divorce and the award cannot be sustained.
5. ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL, ZANZIBAR, ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE OF TOPAN KARSN RAMJI alias RASHID KARSAN RAMJI, DECEASED v. KULSAM FADHIL MUSSA & 5 ors. (1969) HCD 80 - 7/2/1967 – Kimicha, C.J.
The parties, children of the deceased, claimed a piece of property formerly belonging to the deceased. The Administrator General is the plaintiff in form only, belonging the action in court for instruction on the question of which of the disputants should receive the property. Mohamed Hussein claims the property by way of a deed of gift, made to him by the deceased, his father, in 1960. The deed gift was duly witnessed, but the deceased died without registering it as required by Zanzibar law. Mohamed’s sister argued that the gift was invalid for non-registration, and therefore that the property was properly part of the deceased’s estate, to be distributed among all the heirs.
One Ahmed Juma testified that he had been a tenant on the property since 1960, that the deceased in 1960 told him that he had given the property to his son and that the rent should thenceforth be paid to the son, and that he had since that time paid the rent to the son who issued receipts in his own name. One of the witnesses to the deed of gift testified as to its genuineness. The parties were Muslims, members of the Shia sect.
HELD:-
1. The validity of gifts and the distribution of estates is governed by Muslim law, where the deceased was a Muslim. “In civil matters the law of Islam is and is is hereby declared to be the fundamental law of the republic, under Cap. 3, s.7.
2. Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law, para 150 (3), states: “If it is proved by oral evidence that a gift was competed as required by law, it is immaterial that the donor has also executed a deed of gift, but the deed has not been registered as required by the Registration Act.”
3. According to Shia Law, the requirements for a valid gift are:-
(a) A declaration of the gift b y the donor;
(b) An acceptance of the gift by the donee; and
(c) A delivery of possession to the donee. Since these requirements were complied with here, the gift was valid, and Mohamed Hussein is entitled to the property.
7. SHABANI v. SOFIA (1971) HCD 5 -/11/1970 - Kwikima, AG. J.
The respondent who used to live in concubinage with the appellant’s father sued the appellant for compensation of shs.9.120/= for evicting her from the deceased’s house which she used to occupy in his lifetime. The primary court dismissed the claim because the respondent and the deceased were Muslims and according to Islamic law, a concubine has no right to inherit part of the estate which a legally wedded wife is entitled to. Even under Chagga law which could be applicable were the respondent married to the deceased, Chagga widows do not inherit when there are male issues surviving as in this case. The district magistrate felt that the respondent was entitled to some of the estate after staying with the appellant’s father for 19 years and awarded her a quarter of the amount claimed.
HELD:-
1. With due respect this decision cannot be in accordance with the law. In suing the appellant, the respondent necessarily meant that the appellant had wronged her by depriving her part of the inheritance. How could this be if she was not entitled to any? Both Chagga and Islamic law exclude her from inheriting. According to Chagga law, she would not inherit in the presence of the appellant even if she was legally wedded to the deceased. She could not inherit under Islamic law either, being only the concubine of the deceased.
2. As this suit is not an administration of deceased’s estate matter, the appellant cannot be sued by the respondent. “Compensation” is payable by the husbands who divorce their wives or men who forsake their concubines with whom they have worked together and accumulated some wealth to be shared. In this case the appellant was the son of the man who kept the respondent as his concubine. The respondent could not therefore be heard to sue him.
3. Appeal allowed.
8. MANYASA v. MWANAKOMBO (1971) HCD 13- 20/10/1070 - Georges, C.J.
A divorced wife sued the husband for maintenance of three children. The husband died before the case was finalized. The district magistrate substituted the surviving widow for the deceased husband and made an order of maintenance against her at the rate of shs.50/= per month. On appeal, the learned judge set aside the order because the liability for maintaining the children of the broken marriage rested on the deceased husband and not on his surviving widow. The judge however, awarded the children a house allegedly owned by the deceased. When the divorced wife sought to execute the order, a claimant appeared who asserted that the house was his as it had been transferred to him years ago b the deceased. The chief Justice in this Inspection Note outlined the proper procedure to be followed,
HELD:
1. The divorced wife should have been advised to apply for execution under the MCXA [Civil Procedure in Primary Courts] Rules, 1964, s. 58. The Claimant could then appear and show cause why he should not be evicted. If the court rejects the claim, then the matter would be at an end, the order executed. If the court holds that the property in fact belongs to the claimant, then the divorced wife can appeal if she wishes.
9. IN RE: SALUM OMARI MKEREMI (1973) LRT 80, Mfalila, Ag. J. 14/5/1973.
1. The Law applicable to a “deceased native’s estate” [under Cap 30] is the tribal customary law of the deceased unless he had professed the Mohammedan religion and the court is satisfied from the written or oral declaration of the deceased, or his acts or manner of life, that he intended his estate to be administered according to Mohammedan law.
2. The deceased manner and way of life was far removed from his tribal customs, consequently the deceased estate should be administered in accordance with Mohammedan law of succession and not Hehe customary law of succession.
3. A Christian widow can inherit in the estate of her deceased Mohammedan husband and take 1/8th share as provided for by Mohammedan law as long as their marriage was one recognized under that law. [Administrator-General applied u/s 88(1) (b) of Probate and Administration of Estates Act.]
Page 354 of the HCD Casebook: Mrs. Nelly Mkeremi according to the above para. is Kitabia, therefore her civil marriage under the Marriage Ordinance to the deceased was a valid marriage recognized by Mohammedan law. She is therefore a “wife” under that law. If this is so then she is entitled to her share as a wife in the deceased’s estate. MULLA:- P. 234, Para. 259:
“a Mohammedan may contract a valid marriage not only with a Mohammedan women, but also with a Kitabia, that is a Jewess or a Christian, but not with an Idolatress or a fire-worshiper.”
s.19 (4) of JALO? Or Probate? - Notwithstanding any tribal or Mohammedan law to the contrary (b) a person shall not be deprived of a right to succession to property by reason of that person having renounced or having been excluded from the communion of any religion.
10. MANUGWA LUTALAMILA & 2 ors. V. MARTHA LUTALAMILA (1982) TLR 98 – Mfalila, J.
See MCA, sec. 320/1964.
1. In the administration of estates where the law applicable is customary law the Chief Justice is empowered u/s 14 (2) of MCA, 1963 to confer jurisdiction upon Primary Courts to administer the same.
2. Where the matter in issue is inheritance in customary law, then irrespective of the nature of the property involved, the Primary Court has jurisdiction unless the High Court has directed under section 88 of the Probate and Administration Ordinance that the provisions of that ordinance shall apply to the estate in question.
3. Under s.57 (1) of MCA, 1963 THE District Court is denied original jurisdiction to determine a matter of inheritance arising out of customary law.
4. The District Magistrate was wrong in declaring the proceedings in the Primary Court null and void and quashing them; he should have decided the appeal on merits. Order accordingly.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Warioba Wanyangi v. Romara Romara [1977] LRT 7.,HAMISI GOROGORO v. ASHA MERAGANE (1977) LRT No. 41,MWAMBOPE MWAITENDA v LAZARO MWAKANJUKI (19
HAMISI GOROGORO v. ASHA MERAGANE (1977) LRT No. 41
Mfalila, J. held that where a transfer of one’s rights over his dota is valid under customary law, such transfer includes the right of the transferee to receive the bride price on the marriage of the dota.
Obiter: Even if Amina (the dota) had been illegitimate the respondent would have had a claim against the appellant. This is because I think the proper people to have made this claim would have been her male relatives; that is to say; the uncles of her child or her own father (Amina’s grandfather). I do not think the respondent could personally stand up and claim Amina’s bride price. p. 183 of LRT.
Justice Mfalila is saying that (under customary law) he does not think that Asha (the mother of the dota) is the right person to claim for and get paid the bride price payment for her own daughter. PATRIARCHY AT ITS BEST!
MWAMBOPE MWAITENDA v LAZARO MWAKANJUKI (1976) LRT 60, Nyalali, Ag. J. – 4/6/1975.
1. The word ‘Ndugu’ in clauses 62 and 64 of the Customary Law [Declaration] Order 1963 must be construed in such wider sense as to keep it within the extended family structure of African Communities to which the declaration relates.
2. The question whether a particular relative qualified to be ‘ndugu’ of the deceased for the purpose of wife-inheritance is a matter of customary law of the community concerned.
3. Where the customary law [Declaration] Order is silent on a question the answer must be found in the undeclared customary law olf the Wanyakyusa.
4. On the evidence given at the trial before the Primary Court, it would appear that the stepson of a widow for purposes of inheriting that widow as a wife, is a ‘ndugu’ of his late father.
5. The customary law [declaration] order being subject to any relevant Act of Parliament is subject to the LMA 1971.
6. S.25(d) of the LMA recognizes marriages contracted according to customary rights but section 14 (3) prohibits any person from marrying the former spouse of his or her parent.
7. As no evidence was adduced at the trial to show the exact date of the alleged marriage, the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the marriage took place before the lst May 1971 when the LMA came into force. APPEAL DISMISSED.
This case translated Clause 62 of GN 279/63 (28/6/1963) at p.237 of the casebook as follows:
“The widow is asked whether she wishes to be taken over by a kinsman of the deceased. If she does not so wish, bride price does not become refundable and she is free to go and live with her own kinsmen”
Clause 64 – p. 238 of the casebook:
If the widow agrees to live as a wife of one of the kinsmen of the deceased, and the family council approves, she becomes the lawful wife of that kinsman of the deceased.
Mbaruka v. Chimonyogo (PC) [1971] HCD 406
Mwakasendo, Ag. J.
Where a mge has lasted for a very long time (in this case over 22 years and 2 issues) the chances are that the return of bride price swill be ordered in inverse proportion to the number of hears that the marriage has lasted. The longer the mge subsists the dimmer will be the prospects for the claimant, whether he is the innocent party or not, succeeding in getting a refund of the bride price that he had paid at the inception of the mge. The reasons why this should be so are obvious. The original parties to the transaction may have died or, even if they have not died, their fortunes may have adversely changed in the intervening period, so much so that is may be unconscionable to order any refund of bride price. If these propositions are not acceptable, as they are bound to by the tremulous and conservative part of our people, I cannot see what would stop a grand old man of 80 claiming the return of bride price paid 50 years before when he married his divorced 66 year old wife. I have deliberately chosen this extreme case to demonstrate the absurdity to which an untrammeled application of customary rules can lead.
3. Speaking for myself, I believe that customary rules are like the reinless wild horse which only the expert horseman can mount and control but left to the uninitiated it can do deadly harm. I believe too that it is the duty of the courts at this momentous period of our history to assist the growth and promotion of equitable customary rules. We would be failing totally in this respect if we were to abide, without reflection or commonsense, by the unchanging and changeless traditions of the past as if they were priceless medieval relics.
4. I have very little doubt in my own mind that there could be no justification whatsoever for ordering the respondent to refund to the appellant the remainder of the bride price. The appellant should in fact count himself lucky that he got the refund of as many as 12 head of cattle, to which, with respect, I do not think he was entitled…
Warioba Wanyangi v. Romara Romara [1977] LRT 7. - MAGANGA, Ag. J. 21/6/1975.
[The Late Judge Maganga thought that a Kuria Custimary rule which holds a father liable for the torts of his adult son repugnant to reason and natural justice.]
A father is not vicariously liable for the tortuous acts of his child who is not a minor. Appeal dismissed.
ALI ZANDA v. Mohamed Ngago (1973) LRT 16 – Mfalila, Ag. J. , p 67 casebook.
Circumstances in which PCs may exercise civil jurisdiction under section 14 (1) (a) (i) of the MCA, i.e. where customary law is applicable. [The MCA 1984 has only s 14 (1)]
1. Such matters must between members of a community in which rules of customary law on the subject matter are established and accepted and if the parties come from different communities the 2 communities must have similar provisions on the matter.
(ii) If the matter relates to status or succession, the person involved must have belonged to a community in which rules of customary law relevant to the matter are established and accepted;
(iii) By the nature of the dispute it is appropriate that the matter be decided in accordance with customary law except where there are strong indications to the contrary.
Mfalila, J. held that where a transfer of one’s rights over his dota is valid under customary law, such transfer includes the right of the transferee to receive the bride price on the marriage of the dota.
Obiter: Even if Amina (the dota) had been illegitimate the respondent would have had a claim against the appellant. This is because I think the proper people to have made this claim would have been her male relatives; that is to say; the uncles of her child or her own father (Amina’s grandfather). I do not think the respondent could personally stand up and claim Amina’s bride price. p. 183 of LRT.
Justice Mfalila is saying that (under customary law) he does not think that Asha (the mother of the dota) is the right person to claim for and get paid the bride price payment for her own daughter. PATRIARCHY AT ITS BEST!
MWAMBOPE MWAITENDA v LAZARO MWAKANJUKI (1976) LRT 60, Nyalali, Ag. J. – 4/6/1975.
1. The word ‘Ndugu’ in clauses 62 and 64 of the Customary Law [Declaration] Order 1963 must be construed in such wider sense as to keep it within the extended family structure of African Communities to which the declaration relates.
2. The question whether a particular relative qualified to be ‘ndugu’ of the deceased for the purpose of wife-inheritance is a matter of customary law of the community concerned.
3. Where the customary law [Declaration] Order is silent on a question the answer must be found in the undeclared customary law olf the Wanyakyusa.
4. On the evidence given at the trial before the Primary Court, it would appear that the stepson of a widow for purposes of inheriting that widow as a wife, is a ‘ndugu’ of his late father.
5. The customary law [declaration] order being subject to any relevant Act of Parliament is subject to the LMA 1971.
6. S.25(d) of the LMA recognizes marriages contracted according to customary rights but section 14 (3) prohibits any person from marrying the former spouse of his or her parent.
7. As no evidence was adduced at the trial to show the exact date of the alleged marriage, the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the marriage took place before the lst May 1971 when the LMA came into force. APPEAL DISMISSED.
This case translated Clause 62 of GN 279/63 (28/6/1963) at p.237 of the casebook as follows:
“The widow is asked whether she wishes to be taken over by a kinsman of the deceased. If she does not so wish, bride price does not become refundable and she is free to go and live with her own kinsmen”
Clause 64 – p. 238 of the casebook:
If the widow agrees to live as a wife of one of the kinsmen of the deceased, and the family council approves, she becomes the lawful wife of that kinsman of the deceased.
Mbaruka v. Chimonyogo (PC) [1971] HCD 406
Mwakasendo, Ag. J.
Where a mge has lasted for a very long time (in this case over 22 years and 2 issues) the chances are that the return of bride price swill be ordered in inverse proportion to the number of hears that the marriage has lasted. The longer the mge subsists the dimmer will be the prospects for the claimant, whether he is the innocent party or not, succeeding in getting a refund of the bride price that he had paid at the inception of the mge. The reasons why this should be so are obvious. The original parties to the transaction may have died or, even if they have not died, their fortunes may have adversely changed in the intervening period, so much so that is may be unconscionable to order any refund of bride price. If these propositions are not acceptable, as they are bound to by the tremulous and conservative part of our people, I cannot see what would stop a grand old man of 80 claiming the return of bride price paid 50 years before when he married his divorced 66 year old wife. I have deliberately chosen this extreme case to demonstrate the absurdity to which an untrammeled application of customary rules can lead.
3. Speaking for myself, I believe that customary rules are like the reinless wild horse which only the expert horseman can mount and control but left to the uninitiated it can do deadly harm. I believe too that it is the duty of the courts at this momentous period of our history to assist the growth and promotion of equitable customary rules. We would be failing totally in this respect if we were to abide, without reflection or commonsense, by the unchanging and changeless traditions of the past as if they were priceless medieval relics.
4. I have very little doubt in my own mind that there could be no justification whatsoever for ordering the respondent to refund to the appellant the remainder of the bride price. The appellant should in fact count himself lucky that he got the refund of as many as 12 head of cattle, to which, with respect, I do not think he was entitled…
Warioba Wanyangi v. Romara Romara [1977] LRT 7. - MAGANGA, Ag. J. 21/6/1975.
[The Late Judge Maganga thought that a Kuria Custimary rule which holds a father liable for the torts of his adult son repugnant to reason and natural justice.]
A father is not vicariously liable for the tortuous acts of his child who is not a minor. Appeal dismissed.
ALI ZANDA v. Mohamed Ngago (1973) LRT 16 – Mfalila, Ag. J. , p 67 casebook.
Circumstances in which PCs may exercise civil jurisdiction under section 14 (1) (a) (i) of the MCA, i.e. where customary law is applicable. [The MCA 1984 has only s 14 (1)]
1. Such matters must between members of a community in which rules of customary law on the subject matter are established and accepted and if the parties come from different communities the 2 communities must have similar provisions on the matter.
(ii) If the matter relates to status or succession, the person involved must have belonged to a community in which rules of customary law relevant to the matter are established and accepted;
(iii) By the nature of the dispute it is appropriate that the matter be decided in accordance with customary law except where there are strong indications to the contrary.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
MSIBA WA KUONDOKEWA NA CHIFU PATRICE KUNAMBI
SUNDAY NEWS Reporter, 22nd January 2011
ONE of the founders of Tanganyika African Union (TANU) and CCM, Chief Patrick Kunambi, died early on Saturday 22/1/2011 in Dar es Salaam.
CCM Secretary General, Yussuf Makamba said in a statement that Chief Kunambi died at 3:25 am at his home in Ubungo Msewe of heart complications.
He was 94. “CCM received reports of Chief Kunambi’s death with shock and extreme grief. “Chief Kunambi was one of 17 founder members of TANU on July 7, 1954.
He was one of the four founder members of TANU who were still alive until yesterday,” Mr Makamba said in the statement bearing a condolence message to the bereaved family, relatives, friends and all CCM members.
Mr Makamba paid tribute to Chief Kunambi for his enormous and outstanding contribution to the nation throughout his life time, as a nationalist, civil servant and a public leader. Patrict Kunambi was born on August 16, 1916 in Matombo Ward, Morogoro Region.
He was the last of 11 children of Chief Kunambi, who died in 1955 at the age of 145. He attained his secondary school education in Tabora, where he was one of the students of the Father of the Nation, Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere.
Chief Kunambi later attended Tabora Teachers’ College and Makerere University College, Uganda. He taught at different schools and teachers’ training colleges, before going to the University of Duqene in the United States for a Masters Degree between 1962 and 1964.
He served as the Registrar at the University of Dar es Salaam as a volunteer for nine months. Chief Kunambi was Director of Personnel and Administration at the National Transport Corporation (NTC) between 1971 and 1979. Chief Kunambi was an active TANU leader despite his other engagements as the Chief of Waluguru in Morogoro Region and a teacher.
According to the CCM statement, he led a historic TANU meeting in early 1955, which resolved to send Mwalimu Nyerere to the United Nations in New York to press for the independence of Tanganyika.
Mwalimu was in New York to counter a delegation sent by British Colonial administration which campaigned for delay of the independence of Tanganyika for 25 years.
The late Chief Kunambi is survived by two children and seven grandchildren. His wife, Bernadeta, and his two children had passed away.
R I P.
ONE of the founders of Tanganyika African Union (TANU) and CCM, Chief Patrick Kunambi, died early on Saturday 22/1/2011 in Dar es Salaam.
CCM Secretary General, Yussuf Makamba said in a statement that Chief Kunambi died at 3:25 am at his home in Ubungo Msewe of heart complications.
He was 94. “CCM received reports of Chief Kunambi’s death with shock and extreme grief. “Chief Kunambi was one of 17 founder members of TANU on July 7, 1954.
He was one of the four founder members of TANU who were still alive until yesterday,” Mr Makamba said in the statement bearing a condolence message to the bereaved family, relatives, friends and all CCM members.
Mr Makamba paid tribute to Chief Kunambi for his enormous and outstanding contribution to the nation throughout his life time, as a nationalist, civil servant and a public leader. Patrict Kunambi was born on August 16, 1916 in Matombo Ward, Morogoro Region.
He was the last of 11 children of Chief Kunambi, who died in 1955 at the age of 145. He attained his secondary school education in Tabora, where he was one of the students of the Father of the Nation, Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere.
Chief Kunambi later attended Tabora Teachers’ College and Makerere University College, Uganda. He taught at different schools and teachers’ training colleges, before going to the University of Duqene in the United States for a Masters Degree between 1962 and 1964.
He served as the Registrar at the University of Dar es Salaam as a volunteer for nine months. Chief Kunambi was Director of Personnel and Administration at the National Transport Corporation (NTC) between 1971 and 1979. Chief Kunambi was an active TANU leader despite his other engagements as the Chief of Waluguru in Morogoro Region and a teacher.
According to the CCM statement, he led a historic TANU meeting in early 1955, which resolved to send Mwalimu Nyerere to the United Nations in New York to press for the independence of Tanganyika.
Mwalimu was in New York to counter a delegation sent by British Colonial administration which campaigned for delay of the independence of Tanganyika for 25 years.
The late Chief Kunambi is survived by two children and seven grandchildren. His wife, Bernadeta, and his two children had passed away.
R I P.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
WIZI IDARA YA MAGEREZA WAGUNDULIWA NA WAZIRI?
9/1/2011 Waziri Mambo ya Ndani adanganywa Magereza (Habari Leo) tanzania
MRADI wa OMIS uliozinduliwa Desemba 17, mwaka jana na Waziri wa Mambo ya Ndani, Shamsi Vuai Nahodha katika Ofisi ya Makao Makuu ya Jeshi la Magereza umetajwa kuwa ulilenga kufunika utaratibu mbaya uliotumika katika utekelezaji wa mradi huo na kuisababishia hasara Serikali. Mradi wa OMIS (Offenders Management Information System), ulibuniwa na Jeshi la Magereza ukiwa na lengo la kuunganisha idara zote zinazohusika na masuala ya uhalifu ambazo ni Magereza, Polisi, Mahakama, Parole na Huduma za Jamii. Lengo la mradi huo ni kuboresha shughuli za wafungwa kwa kuzifanya idara husika ziweze kutekeleza shughuli zao kwa haraka na ufanisi kwa kutumia teknolojia ya kompyuta. Taarifa ya kurasa tisa iliyowasilishwa kwa Waziri Nahodha ambayo gazeti hili limefanikiwa kuipata nakala yake inayoelezea uhalisia wa mradi huo imefafanua upungufu mkubwa wa kiutendaji, jambo ambalo waziri huyo hakuelezwa awali.
Ndani ya taarifa hiyo, ilielezwa kuwa ni aibu kwa Waziri kukaribishwa kuzindua mradi huo huku uongozi wa Magereza ukifahamu wazi kuwa utekelezaji wake ulikwenda kinyume na nyaraka ya zabuni ya mradi wa OMIS-Software kumbukumbu namba 12/2006/2007 iliyoandaliwa Julai 23, 2007. Waraka huo ambao imeelezwa kuwa maelekezo yake hayakufuatwa, uliandaliwa na Wizara ya Mambo ya Ndani ya Nchi, ndio ulipaswa kutumika kumpata mzabuni aliyepaswa kusimika mfumo huo katika eneo la majaribio, upande wa Jeshi la Magereza, lakini hilo halikufanyika, kwa mujibu wa waraka huo. Kwa mfano, taarifa hiyo ilieleza, mradi huo ulikwenda kinyume na waraka wa zabuni hiyo Omis-Software, uliosimikwa hauna uwezo wa kupanuliwa punde utakapohitajika kutumika sehemu nyingine za utekelezaji wa mradi huo ili kupeana taarifa katika maeneo yote yenye mfumo huo katika uendeshaji wa shughuli za wafungwa.Pia ilielezwa kuwa utekelezaji wa mradi huo umekwenda kinyume na kifungu namba 5 cha zabuni hiyo ambacho kilikuwa kikifafanua utekelezaji kwenye mahitaji ya mradi husika (OMIS-Software user requirements), jambo ambalo limezua sintofahamu kuhusu utekelezaji na ukamilikaji wa mradi huo. Kutokana na sababu hiyo, ilielezwa kuwa uzinduzi wa mradi huo umemdhalilisha Waziri kwa kuwa walitumia ugeni wake katika wizara hiyo kubariki mradi uliokwenda kinyume na maelekezo ya wizara husika. “Uzinduzi wa OMIS uliofanyika Desemba 17 mwaka jana, ulifanyika wakati mradi wa OMIS-Software ukiwa na kasoro nyingi zinazoashiria ubadhirifu wa fedha za Serikali, kupitia udanganyifu unaotengeneza mazingira yatakayodumisha ubadhirifu wa fedha za Serikali,” taarifa hiyo ilieleza. Pia taarifa hiyo ilieleza kuwa vielelezo vya malipo katika mradi huo vinaonesha wazi kwamba Kampuni ya GIVA ambayo inadaiwa kupata zabuni ya mradi huo kinyume na utaratibu, imetumika kama daraja la kuchotea fedha kupitia mradi huo ambapo hadi Oktoba 5, mwaka jana, ilikuwa imelipwa jumla ya Sh 1,936,541,550. Kwa mujibu wa taarifa hiyo, malipo ya hivi karibuni yalifanyika kwa awamu sita ambapo Aprili 4, kupitia vocha namba 995592 ililipwa Sh 410, 884, 850; Juni 25, kwa vocha namba 996861, ililipwa Sh 89,115,150; Juni 24, kwa vocha namba 696977 ililipwa Sh 46,994,154.50. Malipo mengine yalifanyika Juni 27 vocha namba 694001, Sh 453,005,845.50; Septemba 9 kupitia akaunti namba 021240777055 ililipwa Sh 153,287,550; na Oktoba 5 kupitia akaunti namba hiyo hiyo ililipwa Sh 183,254,000. Pia ilielezwa kuwa katika mazingira ya utatanishi, kampuni hiyo iliiuzia Magereza ‘seva’ sita zenye kasi ya 2.2Ghz kwa Sh milioni 410 kwa kutumia zabuni ambayo ‘ilipikwa’ kwani ilikiuka taratibu. Gazeti hili lilielezwa kuwa wakati Jeshi la Magereza likinunua vifaa hivyo, tayari lilikuwa na vingine vitano vyenye uwezo mkubwa zaidi, kwani vina kasi ya 3.4 Ghz, hivyo vifaa vilivyonunuliwa kutoka GIVA vimepitwa na wakati kwa kuwa havitakidhi mahitaji ya mradi huo. Uongozi wa kampuni hiyo ulikiri kuwa Kampuni ya GIVA ilihusika katika mradi huo, lakini ulikataa kutoa taarifa zaidi kuhusu madai yaliyoandikwa kwenye ripoti hiyo. Ilielezwa kuwa Waziri Nahodha alidanganywa waziwazi, kwani katika hotuba ya uzinduzi wa mradi huo katika eneo la majaribio, aliambiwa kuwa mradi huo umekamilika kwa dola milioni moja za Marekani wakati si kweli. Ilielezwa pia kuwa hiyo ilitokana na ukweli kwamba wakati kauli hiyo ikitolewa hakupewa mchanganuo wa matumizi ya fedha katika mradi huo ambao inaonesha wazi matumizi zaidi ya fedha. Pia ilielezwa kuwa software (data au programu ya kompyuta) za alama za vidole na vifaa vingine vinavyotumika katika mradi huo, mpaka sasa havijulikani kinyume na maagizo ya zabuni hiyo, hivyo kujitokeza walakini katika matumizi ya fedha za ziada zilizolipwa kwa kampuni hiyo. Gazeti hili liliwasiliana na Ofisi ya Waziri Nahodha ili kupata ufafanuzi wa jambo hilo, ambapo Katibu wake aliyejitambulisha kwa jina la Nelson alisema kuwa Waziri bado mgeni katika wizara hiyo anahitaji muda wa maandalizi kabla ya kutoa kauli kuhusu jambo hilo. “Nitawasiliana naye kuhusu jambo hilo, nadhani na wewe unajua kwamba Waziri ndio kwanza ameanza kazi hivyo si rahisi akajua kila kitu kinachoendelea katika kila idara, nitumie namba yako ya simu tukishauriana nitakupigia,” alisema Nelson. Lakini hata baada ya kupita wiki mbili sasa, hakuna majibu yaliyotolewa, ilhali watendaji wakuu ndani ya Jeshi hilo wakionekana kukwepa kulizungumzia hilo kwa kile wanachodai kubanwa na majukumu ya kikazi.
MRADI wa OMIS uliozinduliwa Desemba 17, mwaka jana na Waziri wa Mambo ya Ndani, Shamsi Vuai Nahodha katika Ofisi ya Makao Makuu ya Jeshi la Magereza umetajwa kuwa ulilenga kufunika utaratibu mbaya uliotumika katika utekelezaji wa mradi huo na kuisababishia hasara Serikali. Mradi wa OMIS (Offenders Management Information System), ulibuniwa na Jeshi la Magereza ukiwa na lengo la kuunganisha idara zote zinazohusika na masuala ya uhalifu ambazo ni Magereza, Polisi, Mahakama, Parole na Huduma za Jamii. Lengo la mradi huo ni kuboresha shughuli za wafungwa kwa kuzifanya idara husika ziweze kutekeleza shughuli zao kwa haraka na ufanisi kwa kutumia teknolojia ya kompyuta. Taarifa ya kurasa tisa iliyowasilishwa kwa Waziri Nahodha ambayo gazeti hili limefanikiwa kuipata nakala yake inayoelezea uhalisia wa mradi huo imefafanua upungufu mkubwa wa kiutendaji, jambo ambalo waziri huyo hakuelezwa awali.
Ndani ya taarifa hiyo, ilielezwa kuwa ni aibu kwa Waziri kukaribishwa kuzindua mradi huo huku uongozi wa Magereza ukifahamu wazi kuwa utekelezaji wake ulikwenda kinyume na nyaraka ya zabuni ya mradi wa OMIS-Software kumbukumbu namba 12/2006/2007 iliyoandaliwa Julai 23, 2007. Waraka huo ambao imeelezwa kuwa maelekezo yake hayakufuatwa, uliandaliwa na Wizara ya Mambo ya Ndani ya Nchi, ndio ulipaswa kutumika kumpata mzabuni aliyepaswa kusimika mfumo huo katika eneo la majaribio, upande wa Jeshi la Magereza, lakini hilo halikufanyika, kwa mujibu wa waraka huo. Kwa mfano, taarifa hiyo ilieleza, mradi huo ulikwenda kinyume na waraka wa zabuni hiyo Omis-Software, uliosimikwa hauna uwezo wa kupanuliwa punde utakapohitajika kutumika sehemu nyingine za utekelezaji wa mradi huo ili kupeana taarifa katika maeneo yote yenye mfumo huo katika uendeshaji wa shughuli za wafungwa.Pia ilielezwa kuwa utekelezaji wa mradi huo umekwenda kinyume na kifungu namba 5 cha zabuni hiyo ambacho kilikuwa kikifafanua utekelezaji kwenye mahitaji ya mradi husika (OMIS-Software user requirements), jambo ambalo limezua sintofahamu kuhusu utekelezaji na ukamilikaji wa mradi huo. Kutokana na sababu hiyo, ilielezwa kuwa uzinduzi wa mradi huo umemdhalilisha Waziri kwa kuwa walitumia ugeni wake katika wizara hiyo kubariki mradi uliokwenda kinyume na maelekezo ya wizara husika. “Uzinduzi wa OMIS uliofanyika Desemba 17 mwaka jana, ulifanyika wakati mradi wa OMIS-Software ukiwa na kasoro nyingi zinazoashiria ubadhirifu wa fedha za Serikali, kupitia udanganyifu unaotengeneza mazingira yatakayodumisha ubadhirifu wa fedha za Serikali,” taarifa hiyo ilieleza. Pia taarifa hiyo ilieleza kuwa vielelezo vya malipo katika mradi huo vinaonesha wazi kwamba Kampuni ya GIVA ambayo inadaiwa kupata zabuni ya mradi huo kinyume na utaratibu, imetumika kama daraja la kuchotea fedha kupitia mradi huo ambapo hadi Oktoba 5, mwaka jana, ilikuwa imelipwa jumla ya Sh 1,936,541,550. Kwa mujibu wa taarifa hiyo, malipo ya hivi karibuni yalifanyika kwa awamu sita ambapo Aprili 4, kupitia vocha namba 995592 ililipwa Sh 410, 884, 850; Juni 25, kwa vocha namba 996861, ililipwa Sh 89,115,150; Juni 24, kwa vocha namba 696977 ililipwa Sh 46,994,154.50. Malipo mengine yalifanyika Juni 27 vocha namba 694001, Sh 453,005,845.50; Septemba 9 kupitia akaunti namba 021240777055 ililipwa Sh 153,287,550; na Oktoba 5 kupitia akaunti namba hiyo hiyo ililipwa Sh 183,254,000. Pia ilielezwa kuwa katika mazingira ya utatanishi, kampuni hiyo iliiuzia Magereza ‘seva’ sita zenye kasi ya 2.2Ghz kwa Sh milioni 410 kwa kutumia zabuni ambayo ‘ilipikwa’ kwani ilikiuka taratibu. Gazeti hili lilielezwa kuwa wakati Jeshi la Magereza likinunua vifaa hivyo, tayari lilikuwa na vingine vitano vyenye uwezo mkubwa zaidi, kwani vina kasi ya 3.4 Ghz, hivyo vifaa vilivyonunuliwa kutoka GIVA vimepitwa na wakati kwa kuwa havitakidhi mahitaji ya mradi huo. Uongozi wa kampuni hiyo ulikiri kuwa Kampuni ya GIVA ilihusika katika mradi huo, lakini ulikataa kutoa taarifa zaidi kuhusu madai yaliyoandikwa kwenye ripoti hiyo. Ilielezwa kuwa Waziri Nahodha alidanganywa waziwazi, kwani katika hotuba ya uzinduzi wa mradi huo katika eneo la majaribio, aliambiwa kuwa mradi huo umekamilika kwa dola milioni moja za Marekani wakati si kweli. Ilielezwa pia kuwa hiyo ilitokana na ukweli kwamba wakati kauli hiyo ikitolewa hakupewa mchanganuo wa matumizi ya fedha katika mradi huo ambao inaonesha wazi matumizi zaidi ya fedha. Pia ilielezwa kuwa software (data au programu ya kompyuta) za alama za vidole na vifaa vingine vinavyotumika katika mradi huo, mpaka sasa havijulikani kinyume na maagizo ya zabuni hiyo, hivyo kujitokeza walakini katika matumizi ya fedha za ziada zilizolipwa kwa kampuni hiyo. Gazeti hili liliwasiliana na Ofisi ya Waziri Nahodha ili kupata ufafanuzi wa jambo hilo, ambapo Katibu wake aliyejitambulisha kwa jina la Nelson alisema kuwa Waziri bado mgeni katika wizara hiyo anahitaji muda wa maandalizi kabla ya kutoa kauli kuhusu jambo hilo. “Nitawasiliana naye kuhusu jambo hilo, nadhani na wewe unajua kwamba Waziri ndio kwanza ameanza kazi hivyo si rahisi akajua kila kitu kinachoendelea katika kila idara, nitumie namba yako ya simu tukishauriana nitakupigia,” alisema Nelson. Lakini hata baada ya kupita wiki mbili sasa, hakuna majibu yaliyotolewa, ilhali watendaji wakuu ndani ya Jeshi hilo wakionekana kukwepa kulizungumzia hilo kwa kile wanachodai kubanwa na majukumu ya kikazi.
MWAKYEMBE ASEMA DOWANS KAMPUNI HEWA HAISTAHILI KULIPWA CHOCHOTE
Naibu Waziri wa Ujenzi, Dk. Harrison Mwakyembe
Naibu Waziri wa Ujenzi, Dk. Harrison Mwakyembe, amevunja ukimya kuhusu sakata la kutaka kulipwa fidia ya mabilioni ya Shilingi kampuni ya kufua umeme wa dharura ya Dowans Tanzania Limited, kwa kueleza kwamba itakuwa jambo la ajabu kama serikali itakubali kulipa fedha hizo, kwani kampuni hiyo awali ilibainika kuwa ya kitapeli, lakini sasa inaonekana kuwa ni halali.
“Tulishasema kuwa Richmond ni kampuni hewa ambapo Dowans wamerithi mkataba hewa, hivyo inakuwaje walipwe tena mabilioni ya fedha, tunasubiri kuona msingi uliotumika tapeli kulipwa fidia kwa kazi ya utapeli, nitaangalia amelipwa kwa sheria ipi,” alisema Dk. Mwakyembe jijini Dar es Salaam jana.
Dk. Mwakyembe ambaye alikuwa Mwenyekiti wa Kamati Teule ya Bunge iliyoundwa kuchunguza mchakato wa zabuni ya kuzalisha umeme wa dharura kwa Kampuni ya Richmond Development LLC, alitoa tamko hilo katika mahojiano maalum na NIPASHE ofisini kwake, baada ya kuwa kimya kwa muda mrefu tangu itolewe hukumu hiyo ya Mahakama ya Kimataifa ya Usuluhishi (ICC) na kulitaka Shirika la Umeme Tanzania (Tanesco) kuamuriwa kuilipa Dowans Sh. bilioni 94..Alisema suala la kutaka kuilipa Dowans lina sura mbili, sura ya kisiasa na sura ya kitaalamu.
Alisema katika sura ya kitaalamu yeye kama mwanasheria ambaye amekuwa katika fani hiyo kwa zaidi ya miaka 20, anasubiri kwanza hukumu hiyo isajiliwe na itatoa fursa kila Mtanzania kuyasoma na kuyaelewa yaliyomo ndani.
Dk. Mwakyembe alisema kama mwanasheria, anatilia mashaka na kuzua maswali mengi hukumu hiyo kwa sababu haiwezekani kampuni iliyoonekana mwanzo kuwa ni ya kitapeli leo inaonekana halali.
“Mimi ni mwalimu wa sheria wa siku nyingi na nimekuwa kwenye fani hii kwa zaidi ya miaka 20, kwa hiyo nasubiri kwa hamu usajili wa hukumu hiyo ya ICC ili nione ni sheria ipi iliyotumiwa na wanasheria, tapeli kulipwa fidia kwa kazi yake ya utapeli,” alisema Waziri Mwakyembe.
Dk. Mwakyembe alisema baada ya kusajiliwa kwa hukumu hiyo, pia ana dukuduku la kutaka kujua ni vipi Tanzania imepoteza kesi rahisi kama hiyo ambayo hata mwanafunzi wa mwaka wa kwanza wa Shahada ya Sheria angeweza kuiendesha na kushinda.
“Nina dukuduku kutaka kujua ni vipi tumepoteza kesi rahisi kama hii ambayo hata mwanafunzi wangu wa mwaka wa kwanza wa digrii ya sheria nina uhakika angeshinda kwa sababu Bunge lilishatafuna kila kitu,” alisema.
Alisema kama serikali itaingia mkenge kulipa mabilioni hayo ya fedha, ipo katika hatari ya kuingizwa katika kesi iliyofunguliwa Marekani ambayo Dowans wameshitakiana na Richmond kutokana na kung’ang’ania mtambo mmojawapo wa kuzalisha umeme.
Alisema kesi hiyo kati ya Dowans na Richmond ipo katika Mahakama ya Wilaya ya Kusini (The United State District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houstorn Division) ambapo zipo tetesi kuwa Tanzania itakapolipa fedha hizo itajumuishwa kwenye kesi hiyo ya kugombaniana mitambo.
“Dowans na Richmond wameshitakiana Marekani kwa kung’ang’ania mtambo GE TM2005 S/N 481-364,7LM 2005-PE-MDW GE UNIT ID.W/O 601178, sasa zipo tetesi kwamba Tanzania inasubiliwa kuingizwa katika kesi hiyo itakapokubali kulipa fedha hizo,” alisema.
Alisema hatua ya Waziri wa Nishati na Madini, William Ngeleja, kueleza kwamba serikali imeamua kuilipa fedha Dowans, ameufanya haraka kwa sababu angesubiri kwanza hukumu hiyo isajiliwe.
Aliongeza kuwa kama serikali itakubali kulipa fidia hizo, kutakuwa kuna utata kwa sababu majina ya waliotajwa kuwa ni wamiliki wa Dowans Tanzania Limited, lakini wale wa Dowans Holding SA (Costa Rica) hawajulikani na wala hawana anuani ya posta wala simu nchini.
Alisema anayetajwa pekee kuwa mmiliki wa Dowans Holding SA ni Bernal Zamora Arase ambaye hata hivyo, ana makampuni 100 yanayoishia na SA.
“Huyu Bernal Zamora Arase anayetajwa kuwa mmiliki wa Dowans Holding SA hana simu, ofisi wala anuani ya posta, nyumba ya kuishi, gari wala pikipiki hapa nchini,” alisema Dk. Mwakyembe.
Aliongeza kuwa Watanzania wengi bado wanafahamu kuwa chini ya makubaliano, mali zote za Richmond bado hazijahamishiwa Dowans na hivyo wanalipwa pesa kinyemela na wameshitakiana Marekani.
Naibu Waziri huyo akizungumzia katika sura ya kisiasa kuhusiana na sakata la Dowans, alisema wasemaji wakuu ni Spika wa Bunge, ambaye Bunge lake lilipitisha maazimio 23 mwaka 2008 ambapo kati ya maazimio hayo ambayo yalihukumu Richmond kuwa ni kampuni hewa.
Alisema Bunge hilo pia lilienda mbele zaidi kwa kuagiza kutaka ifutwe kwenye orodha ya makampuni halali Tanzania ambapo Oktoba 2008 Richmond ilifutwa kama kampuni isiyo halali.
“Kimsingi, mwenye mamlaka ya kuelezea hatma ya maazimio 23 yaliyotolewa na Bunge ni Spika wa Bunge la Tanzania, kwa sababu hukumu ya ICC imegusa baadhi ya maadhimisho,” alisema.
Dk. Mwakyembe alisema pia Waziri Mkuu ambaye kikatiba ni msimamizi mkuu wa shughuli za Bunge na serikali hivyo ana imani baada ya kupokea ushauri wa Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali atakuwa na kauli yake ya mwisho.
CHANZO: NIPASHE
Naibu Waziri wa Ujenzi, Dk. Harrison Mwakyembe, amevunja ukimya kuhusu sakata la kutaka kulipwa fidia ya mabilioni ya Shilingi kampuni ya kufua umeme wa dharura ya Dowans Tanzania Limited, kwa kueleza kwamba itakuwa jambo la ajabu kama serikali itakubali kulipa fedha hizo, kwani kampuni hiyo awali ilibainika kuwa ya kitapeli, lakini sasa inaonekana kuwa ni halali.
“Tulishasema kuwa Richmond ni kampuni hewa ambapo Dowans wamerithi mkataba hewa, hivyo inakuwaje walipwe tena mabilioni ya fedha, tunasubiri kuona msingi uliotumika tapeli kulipwa fidia kwa kazi ya utapeli, nitaangalia amelipwa kwa sheria ipi,” alisema Dk. Mwakyembe jijini Dar es Salaam jana.
Dk. Mwakyembe ambaye alikuwa Mwenyekiti wa Kamati Teule ya Bunge iliyoundwa kuchunguza mchakato wa zabuni ya kuzalisha umeme wa dharura kwa Kampuni ya Richmond Development LLC, alitoa tamko hilo katika mahojiano maalum na NIPASHE ofisini kwake, baada ya kuwa kimya kwa muda mrefu tangu itolewe hukumu hiyo ya Mahakama ya Kimataifa ya Usuluhishi (ICC) na kulitaka Shirika la Umeme Tanzania (Tanesco) kuamuriwa kuilipa Dowans Sh. bilioni 94..Alisema suala la kutaka kuilipa Dowans lina sura mbili, sura ya kisiasa na sura ya kitaalamu.
Alisema katika sura ya kitaalamu yeye kama mwanasheria ambaye amekuwa katika fani hiyo kwa zaidi ya miaka 20, anasubiri kwanza hukumu hiyo isajiliwe na itatoa fursa kila Mtanzania kuyasoma na kuyaelewa yaliyomo ndani.
Dk. Mwakyembe alisema kama mwanasheria, anatilia mashaka na kuzua maswali mengi hukumu hiyo kwa sababu haiwezekani kampuni iliyoonekana mwanzo kuwa ni ya kitapeli leo inaonekana halali.
“Mimi ni mwalimu wa sheria wa siku nyingi na nimekuwa kwenye fani hii kwa zaidi ya miaka 20, kwa hiyo nasubiri kwa hamu usajili wa hukumu hiyo ya ICC ili nione ni sheria ipi iliyotumiwa na wanasheria, tapeli kulipwa fidia kwa kazi yake ya utapeli,” alisema Waziri Mwakyembe.
Dk. Mwakyembe alisema baada ya kusajiliwa kwa hukumu hiyo, pia ana dukuduku la kutaka kujua ni vipi Tanzania imepoteza kesi rahisi kama hiyo ambayo hata mwanafunzi wa mwaka wa kwanza wa Shahada ya Sheria angeweza kuiendesha na kushinda.
“Nina dukuduku kutaka kujua ni vipi tumepoteza kesi rahisi kama hii ambayo hata mwanafunzi wangu wa mwaka wa kwanza wa digrii ya sheria nina uhakika angeshinda kwa sababu Bunge lilishatafuna kila kitu,” alisema.
Alisema kama serikali itaingia mkenge kulipa mabilioni hayo ya fedha, ipo katika hatari ya kuingizwa katika kesi iliyofunguliwa Marekani ambayo Dowans wameshitakiana na Richmond kutokana na kung’ang’ania mtambo mmojawapo wa kuzalisha umeme.
Alisema kesi hiyo kati ya Dowans na Richmond ipo katika Mahakama ya Wilaya ya Kusini (The United State District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houstorn Division) ambapo zipo tetesi kuwa Tanzania itakapolipa fedha hizo itajumuishwa kwenye kesi hiyo ya kugombaniana mitambo.
“Dowans na Richmond wameshitakiana Marekani kwa kung’ang’ania mtambo GE TM2005 S/N 481-364,7LM 2005-PE-MDW GE UNIT ID.W/O 601178, sasa zipo tetesi kwamba Tanzania inasubiliwa kuingizwa katika kesi hiyo itakapokubali kulipa fedha hizo,” alisema.
Alisema hatua ya Waziri wa Nishati na Madini, William Ngeleja, kueleza kwamba serikali imeamua kuilipa fedha Dowans, ameufanya haraka kwa sababu angesubiri kwanza hukumu hiyo isajiliwe.
Aliongeza kuwa kama serikali itakubali kulipa fidia hizo, kutakuwa kuna utata kwa sababu majina ya waliotajwa kuwa ni wamiliki wa Dowans Tanzania Limited, lakini wale wa Dowans Holding SA (Costa Rica) hawajulikani na wala hawana anuani ya posta wala simu nchini.
Alisema anayetajwa pekee kuwa mmiliki wa Dowans Holding SA ni Bernal Zamora Arase ambaye hata hivyo, ana makampuni 100 yanayoishia na SA.
“Huyu Bernal Zamora Arase anayetajwa kuwa mmiliki wa Dowans Holding SA hana simu, ofisi wala anuani ya posta, nyumba ya kuishi, gari wala pikipiki hapa nchini,” alisema Dk. Mwakyembe.
Aliongeza kuwa Watanzania wengi bado wanafahamu kuwa chini ya makubaliano, mali zote za Richmond bado hazijahamishiwa Dowans na hivyo wanalipwa pesa kinyemela na wameshitakiana Marekani.
Naibu Waziri huyo akizungumzia katika sura ya kisiasa kuhusiana na sakata la Dowans, alisema wasemaji wakuu ni Spika wa Bunge, ambaye Bunge lake lilipitisha maazimio 23 mwaka 2008 ambapo kati ya maazimio hayo ambayo yalihukumu Richmond kuwa ni kampuni hewa.
Alisema Bunge hilo pia lilienda mbele zaidi kwa kuagiza kutaka ifutwe kwenye orodha ya makampuni halali Tanzania ambapo Oktoba 2008 Richmond ilifutwa kama kampuni isiyo halali.
“Kimsingi, mwenye mamlaka ya kuelezea hatma ya maazimio 23 yaliyotolewa na Bunge ni Spika wa Bunge la Tanzania, kwa sababu hukumu ya ICC imegusa baadhi ya maadhimisho,” alisema.
Dk. Mwakyembe alisema pia Waziri Mkuu ambaye kikatiba ni msimamizi mkuu wa shughuli za Bunge na serikali hivyo ana imani baada ya kupokea ushauri wa Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali atakuwa na kauli yake ya mwisho.
CHANZO: NIPASHE
LEGAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE NGO (tanzania) BLOCK PAYMENT TO DOWANS
Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Chris Mwasambili wrote:
BY LAZARO FELIX
12th January 2011
Legal and Human Rights Centre board member Dr Edmund Sengondo Mvungi talks to journalists in Dar es Salaam yesterday. Others are LHRC Director Francis Kiwanga and TAMWA Executive Director Ananilea Nkya.
Tanesco and Dowans` issue took a new twist yesterday after the Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC) filed a case at the High Court to block the government’s decision to pay the power firm 97bn/-.
According to the LHRC Executive Director Francis Kiwanga, the High Court (Commercial Division) was expected to set up the date and appoint a judge for the hearing of the case tomorrow.
“In our application, we asked the High Court to speed up hearing of the case. We hope it will do so…we are now waiting for instructions on Thursday,” he noted.
“We are challenging the hefty compensation…it is a huge amount of money, which is unfair to pay to Dowans,” Kiwanga told a press conference in Dar es Salaam yesterday.
The LHRC has contracted a prominent constitutional lawyer and university lecturer, Dr Sengondo Mvungi to represent them in court.
The latest move by lawyers and activists from the LHRC comes a few days after the government through the Ministry of Energy and Minerals agreed to pay Dowans the money as compensation for breach of the contract by Tanesco.
The government’s stance to compensate Dowans has attracted a fierce condemnation from legislators and civil society organisations. A few days ago, the Minister for Energy and Minerals William Ngeleja said: “The ministry has agreed to pay Dowans as per the ruling of the International Chamber of Commercial (ICC).”
The ICC ordered the state-run power firm, Tanesco, to pay Dowans 97bn/- for breach of contract — a ruling which is now being disputed by the LHRC as unfair and unjustifiable.
Kiwanga criticised elements of secrecy in the Tanesco-Dowans case, saying members of the public were not informed about the filing and hearing of the case at the ICC.
“The members of the public heard about the case after the ruling by the ICC. Why they made it secret?” queried Kiwanga.
He explained that there were civil societies currently working for the welfare of Tanzanians and promised the centre to maintain the spirit by challenging the ICC ruling the High Court. “LHRC and other organisations played an active in role in saving millions of Tanzanian taxpayers’ money in the case between the City Water and government case some years ago.”
He faulted the government’s decision to pay Dowans before considering other legal options to save taxpayers’ money.
Kiwanga pointed out that Tanesco should not pay even a single cent to Dowans, blaming the government for ignoring the Parliamentary report on the capacity and competence of Richmond/Dowans.
“Ignoring the Parliamentary report on the Richmond Company is itself against the rule of law, pillars of democracy and public interest,” said Kiwanga.
Meanwhile, Dr Sengondo Mvungi asked the government to respect the Parliamentary decision on the Richmond/Dowans issue.
“The Parliament through its committee, which probed the issue, said the Richmond contract was null and void and thus unenforceable. This should be respected by the government,” said Dr Mvungi
He explained that the Tanzania High Court (Commercial Division) would have to say if it supported the ICC to exploit Tanzanians or defended them since the government’s decision in the case was to pay the billions of money, while citizens were starving from poor services.
Tanzania Media Women’s Association (Tamwa) executive director Ananilea Nkya said:
“We should work collectively to make sure Tanesco does not pay the compensation to Dowans,” said Nkya.
She said it was a pity to see that the government was not ready even to appeal against the ICC ruling, a situation she explained as the government’s failure to be accountable to the people, who elected its leaders.
SOURCE: THE GUARDIAN
BY LAZARO FELIX
12th January 2011
Legal and Human Rights Centre board member Dr Edmund Sengondo Mvungi talks to journalists in Dar es Salaam yesterday. Others are LHRC Director Francis Kiwanga and TAMWA Executive Director Ananilea Nkya.
Tanesco and Dowans` issue took a new twist yesterday after the Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC) filed a case at the High Court to block the government’s decision to pay the power firm 97bn/-.
According to the LHRC Executive Director Francis Kiwanga, the High Court (Commercial Division) was expected to set up the date and appoint a judge for the hearing of the case tomorrow.
“In our application, we asked the High Court to speed up hearing of the case. We hope it will do so…we are now waiting for instructions on Thursday,” he noted.
“We are challenging the hefty compensation…it is a huge amount of money, which is unfair to pay to Dowans,” Kiwanga told a press conference in Dar es Salaam yesterday.
The LHRC has contracted a prominent constitutional lawyer and university lecturer, Dr Sengondo Mvungi to represent them in court.
The latest move by lawyers and activists from the LHRC comes a few days after the government through the Ministry of Energy and Minerals agreed to pay Dowans the money as compensation for breach of the contract by Tanesco.
The government’s stance to compensate Dowans has attracted a fierce condemnation from legislators and civil society organisations. A few days ago, the Minister for Energy and Minerals William Ngeleja said: “The ministry has agreed to pay Dowans as per the ruling of the International Chamber of Commercial (ICC).”
The ICC ordered the state-run power firm, Tanesco, to pay Dowans 97bn/- for breach of contract — a ruling which is now being disputed by the LHRC as unfair and unjustifiable.
Kiwanga criticised elements of secrecy in the Tanesco-Dowans case, saying members of the public were not informed about the filing and hearing of the case at the ICC.
“The members of the public heard about the case after the ruling by the ICC. Why they made it secret?” queried Kiwanga.
He explained that there were civil societies currently working for the welfare of Tanzanians and promised the centre to maintain the spirit by challenging the ICC ruling the High Court. “LHRC and other organisations played an active in role in saving millions of Tanzanian taxpayers’ money in the case between the City Water and government case some years ago.”
He faulted the government’s decision to pay Dowans before considering other legal options to save taxpayers’ money.
Kiwanga pointed out that Tanesco should not pay even a single cent to Dowans, blaming the government for ignoring the Parliamentary report on the capacity and competence of Richmond/Dowans.
“Ignoring the Parliamentary report on the Richmond Company is itself against the rule of law, pillars of democracy and public interest,” said Kiwanga.
Meanwhile, Dr Sengondo Mvungi asked the government to respect the Parliamentary decision on the Richmond/Dowans issue.
“The Parliament through its committee, which probed the issue, said the Richmond contract was null and void and thus unenforceable. This should be respected by the government,” said Dr Mvungi
He explained that the Tanzania High Court (Commercial Division) would have to say if it supported the ICC to exploit Tanzanians or defended them since the government’s decision in the case was to pay the billions of money, while citizens were starving from poor services.
Tanzania Media Women’s Association (Tamwa) executive director Ananilea Nkya said:
“We should work collectively to make sure Tanesco does not pay the compensation to Dowans,” said Nkya.
She said it was a pity to see that the government was not ready even to appeal against the ICC ruling, a situation she explained as the government’s failure to be accountable to the people, who elected its leaders.
SOURCE: THE GUARDIAN
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)