Othman: Joining GNU was not easy decision

Question: Since the lifting of the ban on political rallies, your party, ACT Wazalendo, has been preaching about ‘The Brand Promise.” What is this about?

Answer: The “brand promise” is essentially what the party stands for, and it is a long-term vision of the party on key issues in the country. It is what the party promises to the citizens, to the people of Zanzibar, if it is elected to run the government for 10 years starting in 2025. We have two sets of promises, one for mainland Tanzania and one for Zanzibar, so it is essentially how the party will address key issues and how it will impact Zanzibar and Tanzania’s mainland.

You are in the Government of National Unity (GNU); how difficult or easy was it for you to accept the nomination to join the government, and by that, did you legitimize the ruling party, and what happened in 2020?

In the first place, let us accept that it was a very difficult decision for the party to join the government of national unity (GNU) after what happened in the 2020 General Election.

It was the worst election in Zanzibar’s history; we have seen rigging and all sorts of atrocities, but 2020 was like the most difficult, but at the end of the day, we said it was not the end of the story for the people of Zanzibar. It was part of history, part of the dynamics. We did some soul-searching, asking ourselves, “For example, if we are out of government, then should we expect any improvements? Will the issues that we stand for be addressed?

From our past experience, for example, between 2015 and 2020, we were not in the government; we won half of the seats (27 constituencies), but because of the nullification of the election results without any justification, we didn’t participate in the GNU. However, the ruling party proceeded unconstitutionally to run the government.  The Zanzibar constitution is very clear that in the circumstances, the President was supposed to dissolve the House of Representatives and call for a new election, but unfortunately, he didn’t do that, and instead he continued to run this country unconstitutionally. Therefore, we said that because we don’t have the people whose interest is to improve the governance situation, it would be better if we went in because it would act as a platform for engagement not only with the general public but also with the other side of the political divide and the international community. We looked at the bigger picture.

Looking at the bigger picture, as you said, what role does the opposition play in the operations of the GNU?

Running the government has different levels. The first level is about policy making, which we do not get into very much because the GNU gives the other side the mandate to implement their manifesto. Therefore, in policymaking, we have very little influence. The second part is the day-to-day management of the government and the different decisions. We participate, but because of our number, it again gives us very little influence.

At the third level, which is generally decision-making under our constitution, the strange or bad thing about that document is that it runs on absolutism, with most of the powers vested in the President. He is the alpha and omega, so as the opposition, you often find yourself on the receiving end. The only thing is that it offers us the platform to make our contribution and influence some decisions, and we have been successful in that. It offers us the opportunity to engage and make people see the point of the direction that we are trying to take.

You are in government, but somehow you do not seem to agree with how affairs are being run. Do you see yourself walking out at some point?

I think if you had the opportunity to listen to the president, he is always complaining about how things are being run in the government, which he is not happy with.

That has become common because we don’t have a proper governance framework. It is like everybody is complaining in the government; the ministers are complaining, and so is the president. We are complaining because we think that maybe things could have been different.

In the second place, we are in the government, but again, we are in the opposition, so as a party, we have the role of overseeing the government, which is our biggest role. We also have to speak out on issues of public concern and reflect on alternative policies as the opposition. That is what we are doing, and despite the fact that we are not happy, we have the role to provide alternative thinking on a number of issues.

What is wrong with the old Zanzibar that your party has been preaching for in recent rallies?

Actually, it is not the old one; we think it is the contaminated one. The new Zanzibar is about how the country, the government, and public issues should be run.

The people of Zanzibar have a vision of where they want to go—for example, their identity. If you ask any Zanzibari, one thing that is lost, which the ruling party doesn’t seem to care about, is the identity of Zanzibar. Zanzibar before the union in 1964 was a sovereign country, so it has its own culture, but it also has its own history, and now with the union, that identity is lost. When you go to any island nation, one thing that is common is their identity. People in small jurisdictions tend to put their identity at the forefront; they never want to compromise. So what we are saying is that the new Zanzibar is one that will recognize the identity of the people of Zanzibar and their rights because they are in their own country.

But also, there are a number of issues such as unemployment, governance in general, and the management of the administration of justice, which is the poorest as we speak. Zanzibar had a very strong judicial system before 1964, but now injustice is very common. We also look at the preservation of culture because, when you talk about the preservation of Swahili culture, Zanzibar is the epicenter and the only place where the Swahili people have a government that can promote Swahili culture. Zanzibar is relevant not only within Zanzibar but with the East African Coast. So there are a number of issues that we think need to be addressed in order to return Zanzibar to the civilized nation that it once was.

Is this new Zanzibar that you are talking about pro-Union?

The problem with the union is that each time you talk about it, people think you are talking about politics, and some people don’t want to accept the truth. The one thing we have to accept is that this union was part of the geopolitics of the time and the interests of big nations at the time. Now that the paradigm has shifted, we should look at the union from an economic perspective; it should give room for Zanzibar to grow. The economic development of Zanzibar has been retarded partly because of the Union; for example, if you go to any island nation, they have a fiscal framework that suits their needs.

Zanzibar cannot use the same fiscal policy as Mainland Tanzania because it has a big economy with a population of about 60 million people, whereas Zanzibar has less than 2 million.

This means we have economic circumstances that demand a special fiscal framework; for example, income tax is a union matter, so how could Zanzibar attract capital into its economy using the union framework?

Therefore, what we are saying is that the new Zanzibar is one that wants to negotiate a new deal for Zanzibar. So it is not a question of being pro-union or not, because for every serious person, the union is a unique opportunity because it takes us into close proximity with a big economy, which we cannot afford to miss as a small jurisdiction. But under what terms? In a nutshell, the new Zanzibar is one that wants to have a new deal within the Union.

In the past few years, certain laws have been passed, including one that makes tax evasion unbailable. What is your take?

That was very unfortunate because taxes and tax collection are economic issues. To criminalize the law to that extent is prone to abuse, and that is what is happening.

But in the second place, in the history of Zanzibar, we have never had unbailable offenses; even murder and treason were bailable. What the law says is that bail should only be considered by the high court.

Therefore, if someone comes up with a new law that makes it unbailable under the constitution, it can be taken under scrutiny. But leaving the legal side aside, economically, it is good as long as that is not applicable.

What I am worried about is that under the current governance framework, where we don’t have proper institutions, having that kind of law could be abusive and frustrate business.

It has been widely reported that the government has abandoned the tendering process when it comes to awarding projects. Is this the way you people want to run the government?

Here we have what could be a thin line, but it is there: we have a party whose main function is to oversee the government.

We have so many oversight bodies, such as the House of Representatives, plus others who are doing the same work and are from the same party. The law is very clear about what can be excluded from public, open competitive bidding processes and what should not.

The question is, why wasn’t the public informed of these projects? Well, I think there is a regulatory authority that should make sure that the law is followed. The public has a right to know about these projects.

In his report, the CAG mentions the misuse of COVID-19 funds. What do you know about this?

That is the good thing about having oversight bodies; there are people who are responsible, and now that the CAG has made it public, normally it is discussed by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), then we come up with a report that shows whether what the CAG has observed is true, and then the disciplinary authority takes action against those who are implicated. The process is very clear. What the public is questioning is what actions are taken after such reports are released.

There is a looming constitutional reform. What is ACT-Wazalendo’s take on this, and what type of constitution do you expect for the Zanzibari people?

Under our constitutional order in the United Republic of Tanzania, there are principles that have been there; we have two governments with three jurisdictions (Union, Tanganyika, and Zanzibar).

Therefore, under this arrangement, Zanzibar has interests in two areas: in the first place, what are the non-union matters for Zanzibar, and what are the union matters and how are they being managed?

If the union constitution is going to be under two governments as it is now, then it means the union government is running 70 percent of Tanganyika’s non-union matters and some union matters. As for Zanzibar, we have our own constitution that runs non-union matters; therefore, when it comes to the union constitution, we are mainly interested in the management of union matters and what will be our relationship with the union.

Our interest is that there should be a fair arrangement within the union, and when we talk about this, there are matters that are non-union, so they should stay that way in terms of management, financing, and legislative process.

Right now, for example, when it comes to financing, you don’t see the financing of non-union matters within the union; therefore, union and non-union matters for Tanganyika are in the same basket.

This is actually very suspicious; therefore, what we want is a clear definition between union and non-union issues in all aspects. We want the clear involvement of Zanzibar; as long as it is a union matter, Zanzibar should be equally and fairly involved because it is shared sovereignty. The current arrangement is like a dominion, and it is not healthy for the future!

In 2014, you were expelled from the ruling party after you voted for three governments in the Constituent Assembly in Dodoma. Do you have any regrets?

That was my duty; I was the attorney general of Zanzibar, not the AG of CCM, and as the AG, I was responsible for protecting the interests of the people of Zanzibar who were alive then and those who will be born several decades from now. Therefore, I do not have any regrets at all!

I was indeed privileged to fairly exercise my duty as the AG; my uncompromised duty was to protect the interests of the people who had trusted me with that position.