| Lawyers expose weak spots in Election law | Send to a friend |
| Thursday, 02 September 2010 07:30 |
 By Florence MugarulaLawyers have pocked holes into the newly enacted Election Expenses Act, saying some of its sections were contradictory.They aired their opinion few days after the opposition Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (Chadema) presented to the Registrar of the Political Parties a petition seeking exclusion of Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) presidential candidate, President Jakaya Kikwete, for allegedly flouting section 21 of the said law. The lawyers who spoke to The Citizen, cited section 21 of the law which, they claimed, outlaws giving promises, an essential component of campaigning ahead of elections. But government officials declined to react to the claims when contacted by this paper yesterday. The minister for Cosntitutional Affairs and Justice, Mr mathias Chikawe, told this paper that he could not comment on the issue because he is in Nachingwea where he was campaigning to retain his parliamentary seat. The attorney General, Judge Frederick Werema, said he was at home and could not comment on the issue. The Dar es Salaam based lawyer, advocate Philemon Mutakyamilwa told The Citizen that the contradiction with the Election Expenses Act 2010 was on the sections which outlaws giving promises. He said it was obvious that the promises which are not indicated in the party’s manifestos were not encouraged in the campaign, but the section of the law was outlawing promises without qualifying which type of promises. Mr Mutakyamilwa added that so far the law was contradictory and that the situation was even worse in Tanzania environment. “This law was signed to deal with election issues, but when you go in details still there are many areas which need to be localised according to our environment,” said Mr Mutakyamilwa. The Senior law lecturer at the University of Dar es Salaam, Dr Sengondo Mvungi said article number 21 of the Election Expenses Act of 2010 was intending to bring accountability among candidates. But he admitted that the new law has some weaknesses but insisted that there was no way to stop the implementation as it has already signed by the President. “We all know that this law is still new and there are some weaknesses here and there, but every candidate including President Kikwete must adhere to the law, I think the law is also intending to control empty promises,” said Dr Mvungi. Advocate Yonathan Mbuga said it was very hard to implement the new law in Tanzania context currently as it has sections which were impracticable. “We make laws that intend to solve problems in the society, but this law is contradictory and impracticable. Therefore I can say it is not suitable to the intended society,” said Mr Mbuga. The Citizen efforts to get Minister of State, President’s Office Good governance, Mr Philip Marmo’s comments were futile as he could not pick up the phone. The Minister for constitution affairs and justice, Mr Mathias Chikawe said: “I am now in the campaign meeting, I am not in good position to comment on that matter,” The Attorney General, Mr Frederick Werema also decline to comment on the matter saying he was not in the office. Chadema petition bases on number of promises made by President Kikwete when campaigning in Mwanza and Kagera regions. According to Chadema, the CCM candidate’s promised to buy a new ship he made to people of Kagera region, was tantamount to bribing them so that they could vote for him and this was contrary to section 21 of the said law. Chadema also claim that a promise by President Kikwete to write off a Sh5 billion debt he extended to Nyanza Cooperative Union, was also against the law. Also Chadema complained of CCM candidate to promise to pay sh five billion for Nyanza cooperative union and that the government will take on all cooperative union’s debts in the country. Another issue which Chadema has cited as contrary to the law was the promise to raise workers minimum salary. The opposition party argue that this was contrary to the law as the issue of salaries was discussed and passed by the parliament. According to Chadema petition, the CCM candidate has violated the election expenses Act of 2010 section 21 subsection 1 (a) and (e) and Election Expenses Act number 6 of 2010. Reacting to Chadema’s petition, the Chairman of Tanganyika Law Society, Mr Felix Kibodya said the opposition party has directed their complaints to the right office and that the party has exercised its democratic right. However, Mr Kibodya said it was difficult for the politicians to conduct campaigns without giving promises because it was the only way they can bring hopes to voters. The lawyer admitted that the Election Expenses Act of 2010 was still new to many Tanzanians including politicians themselves and that it was obvious challenges and problems in implementing it were inevitable. “This law is still new in this country, but still I see the formulation of this law as a major steps for Tanzania to move forward, I think now we have somewhere to start,” said Mr Kibodya. Advocate Sylivatus Sylivanus commented that the Act was contradicting itself since it does not even define the meaning of campaign. “The first thing which is contradicting in this new law is the absence of the definition of the word campaign, it is very difficult in legal issues to deal with something which is now clearly defined in the given law,” said Mr Sylivand. He further said the whole of section 21 of the law was neutralised by its subsection three, which allows everything which has been outlaws in the subsequent subsections. The executive director of National Organization for Legal Assistance (nola), Mr Clement Mashamba said Chadema was right to submit their complaints to the registrar office. He said the registrar has the capacity to analyze and see what was crucial in such kind of cases before giving out the ruling which can force Chadema to move forward or CCM to react according to what the law says. Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites           |
| Last Updated on Friday, 03 September 2010 00:17 |
