MISCONCEIVED REACTIONS TO TUNDU LISSU’s REMOVAL FROM PARLIAMENT: A MANIFESTATION OF LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF THE COUNTRY’s CONSTITUTION

                              

Mr. Tundu Lissu (former Member of Parliament for Singida Mashariki constituency) recently lost his seat in Parliament, according to Speaker Job Ndugai, as a result of the MP’s breach of the provisions of article 71 (1) (c) and (g) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977. However, there have been certain misconceived reactions which have been publicly expressed in the social media platforms; with most of the commentators blaming the Speaker ‘for having taken that action’, which they consider to be unfair to Mr. Lissu.   Expressing one’s opinion is, of course, quite in order because, under article 18 (a) of our country’s Constitution, “kila mtu anao uhuru wa kuwa na maoni, na kueleza fikra zake”.   Thus, under the protection of that same  constitutional  provision,  I  am also taking this opportunity to express my own opinions  regarding that  matter,  and that  is  the theme of today’s  article,  in which I will advance the view that opinions  which  tend to  blame Speaker  Ndugai  for Tundu  Lissu’s  removal  from Parliament  are,  in fact,  totally misconceived and misdirected, as they appear  to be  based on a serious  lack of proper  knowledge, and  understanding,  of the relevant provisions of our Constitution.

What the Constitution says.

The relevant provisions of the Union Constitution, 1977, read in Kiswahili as follows: -  “71 (1)  Mbunge atakoma kuwa Mbunge  na ataacha kiti chake katika Bunge, litokeapo  lolote katika  mambo  yafuatayo –

(c)   Ikiwa  Mbunge atakosa kuhudhuria vikao vya Mikutano mitatu  mfululizo (ya Bunge),  bila ruhusa ya Spika.                                                                                                                       

 (g)  Kwa Mbunge ambaye anatakiwa kutoa taarifa rasmi ya mali kwa mujibu wa masharti ya Ibara ya 70, ikiwa atashinwa kutoa tamko hilo rasmi katika muda uliowekwa mahsusi  kwa ajili  hiyo kwa mujibu wa sheria  iliyotungwa na Bunge”.                                                                                                                      

  It is important to note the mandatory   nature of the provision in article 71 (1); namely that “Mbunge atakoma kuwa  Mbunge, na  ataacha kiti chake katika Bunge, litokeapo lolote katika mambo hayo”. 

An English translation of that provision would read as follows: “A Member of Parliament  shall  cease  to be such member, and  shall  vacate  his seat  in Parliament, upon the occurrence of any of the following events”   This clearly means that Mr. Tundu  Lissu’s  removal  from Parliament was  NOT  determined  by Speaker  Ndugai.   It was determined solely by the Constitution.  And that is what makes any such and opinions (purporting to blame the Speaker for Mr. Tundu’s loss of his Parliamentary seat) totally misconceived, and therefore stand to be corrected.  Consequently, that underscores the need for upgrading public awareness regarding the provisions of the country’s Constitution.

For   example,  even  some  Members of Parliament  who, before assuming office,  are required to take a solemn  oath  “to  uphold  and to defend the Constitution”  have, in the instant case,  also   displayed  this  lack of Constitutional   awareness  and understanding,  when  they claimed  that the Speaker  “had  committed a procedural error, when  he  announced his judgment  (of removing   Mr. Tundu  Lissu from  Membership of Parliament)  without  first giving him the opportunity to be heard  by the Ethics Committee of the House”.   Thus, because they have taken the oath “to  uphold and to defend the Constitution” ,  they  surely ought to know  (unless  they were merely reciting  those  words  parrot-fashion,  which is unbelievable),  that the  Speaker  was  merely  announcing  the occurrence of an event   which had been  precipitated  by operation of  the  Constitution’s  relevant  provisions.                              

It may therefore be helpful and opportune to   point out, for the benefit of the current generation of Tanzanians, that such Constitutionally precipitated events have, in fact, occurred more than once before in the history of our Parliament.                                   

There was, for example, the removal of Speaker Amir Yusufali Abdulkarim   Karimjee   from the Speakership of the House on 9^th December 1962; the day on which the Tanganyika Republican Constitution came into force. 

That Constitution had made provisions which disqualified non-citizens of the new Republic of Tanganyika from becoming Members of or holding leadership positions in Parliament.                          

 Amir Karimjee, who had been Speaker of the House both before and immediately after independence, was a British citizen, and had opted not to apply for Tanganyika’s citizenship.  Hence, he was automatically (i.e.  by operation of law), removed from that position effective from that day.                       

 An announcement to that effect was accordingly made in the House at its first sitting after the occurrence of that event, and the House just proceeded to elect Chief Adam Sapi  Mkwawa  as the new Speaker.                                          

That same Constitutional provision also affected one Mr.  Austin Kapere Edward Shaba, who was Member of Parliament for Mtwara at the material time.   Immediately   it became known that he was not a citizen of Tanganyika (because both his parents, were born in neighbouring Mozambique), he therefore automatically lost his Membership of Parliament, again solely by operation of the country’s Constitution. 

And, in more recent times  (at the time  when I was the Speaker of the House),  a  similar event occurred  when  the Civic United Front (CUF) decided to boycott  Parliament after the 1995 first multi-party  general elections, and  prohibited all its elected Members from attending the Meetings of the House.  When they had missed a total of three consecutive meetings, they automatically lost their seats in Parliament.  All   I had to do as Speaker, was just to make an announcement to that effect in the House, and by-elections were consequently   held to fill the vacant positions.

The need for upgrading public awareness of the Constitution.

In my considered opinion, the said misconceived views that are currently being expressed regarding Mr. Tundu Lissu loss of his Parliamentary seat, are based on a serious lack of understanding of the country’s Constitution; and appropriate steps should be taken to remedy this deficiency. I actually  started arguing the case for enhancing public knowledge  and  awareness regarding the contents of our Constitution  soon after  the re-introduction of multi-party politics in our governance system;  when the Opposition political parties  were actively campaigning for the enactment of a new, multi-party Constitution because, they  so claimed, “the present Constitution  is unfair, because it is biased in  favour  of the ruling party CCM”.   In my book titled  Reflections on the First Decade of Multi-party Politics in Tanzania, 2006  (Nyambari  Nyangine  Publishers,  Dar es Salaam);    I argued that “ the need for educating the public  is much  greater now  than ever before;  for it is important and necessary for the public to be made aware of the so-called  ‘unfair’  provisions of the Constitution, so as to enable them to contribute  effectively to the campaign for their  removal  from our Constitution”.    

 But  even  Mwalimu Julius Nyerere himself,  in his book titled  Our Leadership and the Destiny of Tanzani a  (Zimbabwe Publishing House Pvt  Ltd, Harare);  offers  the following  rare ‘nuggets of wisdom’:- "It is of vital importance to the peace of this country, and to the possibility of its  harmonious development, that all the provisions of the Union Constitution,  as it stands at any one time, should  be fully  respected  and  honoured   . . .  Tyrannies and dictatorships do not have Constitutions, or if they have them on paper, they are routinely disregarded and rendered irrelevant in practice.  But countries (like Tanzania), which are endeavoring to build democratic and accountable governance systems; have created   Constitutions which are appropriate to their particular conditions, histories, and culture. Their Constitutions are the bulwark, or fortress, of their continued existence as a democracy.   Thus, if they are allowed to be disregarded, the democratic foundation of the nation will have been   placed at the mercy of charlatans and crooks; and the country will have set foot upon a slippery path to dictatorship”.     
It is quite clear and obvious, that adherence to the Constitution becomes possible only where its contents are fully understood, and appreciated, by the relevant public.  And this again underscores the vital need for extensive public education to enhance such precious awareness.

A   ray of hope appeared in 2014.

 A ray of hope  in that  respect  appeared in 2014, during the Constitution- making process which was initiate by President  Jakaya  Kikwete,  of  the  Fourth phase  Government;  when a great deal of public discussion took   place among Tanzanians regarding the merits and demerits  of the proposed new Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania.               

They  said  ‘ray of hope’  emerged  from the fact  that this particular process, more than  any other of its predecessors,  drew  the attention  and  active  participation  of a much larger number of Tanzanian stake holders, who  voiced their  demands for  postponement of the referendum  exercise,  in order to allow more time for  the people to get enlightened   on  the contents of the proposed new Constitution,  particularly on  “what had  been  unfairly  left  out by the Constituent Assembly”;  so as to enable them to make informed decisions during the referendum.                                  

  This was a significant  new  development  in peoples’ awareness  regarding the importance of the country’s  Constitution, since  all the previous Constitution-making processes  had  always  attracted comparatively   little  public interest , despite the  commendable efforts  which  were always  made  for obtaining  the peoples’ views   through  the appointment of  ‘Presidential  Constitutional Review Commissions’  for that sole purpose.                   

The  ‘Nyalali Commission’ ,which  was appointed in 1991 by President Ali Hassan Mwinyi  of the Second phase Government,  helpfully   disclosed in its Report  that  although it held public meetings in each of the Regions and Districts of Tanzania, they were able to collect only  32,279 submissions from Tanzania Mainland; and only 3,679 from Zanzibar, making a total of a mere 36, 299 submissions   from the whole United Republic.  While the ‘Kisanga Commission’ that was appointed in 1998 by President Benjamin Mkapa of the Third phase Government, which also held public meetings in all the Regions and Districts of the country; but received a total of only 600,000 submissions.  And the more recent ‘Warioba Commission which was appointed by President Jakaya Kikwete of the Fourth phase Government, received a total of only 684, 303 submissions from the public.  
These are, obviously, very small numbers compared with the total adult population of Tanzania citizens during the relevant time periods. This is indicative of the   low- level of public interest in the Constitutional affairs of our nation which, I submit, needs to be enhanced.               

The  principal purpose of this article was to show that  some of the publicly  expressed reactions to Mr. Tundu  Lissu’s  removal from Parliament were,  actually,  totally  misconceived and misdirected;   and further that  this was  primarily due to a lack of proper knowledge and understanding  of  the relevant provisions of the Constitution of the United Republic;  and  even  very  little  interest,  in the  affairs  pertaining  to  the country’s  Constitution.  There is, therefore, an   urgent need to enhancing this inadequate level of Constitutional understanding.

 Plato, that famous 1^st century Greek philosopher is reported to have said: “No law, or Ordinance, is mightier than understanding”.  

piomsekwa@gmail.com/0754767576.

Source: Daily News and Cde Msekwa himself.