Loathe or love him, Magufuli has proved to be extra innovative so as to add something to the solidarity of Tanzania. Those who wonder why and how Tanzania has been peaceful amidst turmoil and tumultuous Africa must see and view this. A Luta Continua. Bravo Magufuli.
How the Berlin Conference Clung on Africa: What Africa Must Do
Saturday, 30 May 2020
When America Made Great Again by Donald Trump Leads the World in Brutality
When Donald Trump, US President, promise to make America again, we didn't rightly get it.
Now that Trump and his henchmen are at it, we need to take note.
Is this what we expected from this President?
What did his meme mean to the world that he is now at it with impunity and brutality?
What should we expect out of this regime that seems hell-bent to abuse human rights?
Though racism has been in America's DNA since its founder found it,
We need to understand that this has gone beyond anybody can make do with leave alone living it.
What are we going to do about this brutality as humanity?
Help me about this as you ponder on it.
Will the death of a black man, George Floyd help Trump to avert what he seeks to blot out
This is nothing but Americans' anguish on how Trump mishandled Covid-19, what criminality!
Will Trump's covert brutality save him from defeat?
Biden, you see everything as you prepare yourself to unseat the deliquent.
Wednesday, 27 May 2020
REORGANIZING PARLIAMENT TO REFLECT THE MULTI-PARTY ENVIRONMENT.
Last week’s instalment closed at the point when I was describing my good luck of being the leader of Parliament, at the time and period of great transformation and reconstruction; when that Institution was called upon to make history in terms of enacting new Constitutions to accommodate the rapidly changing political circumstances. Today’s article will first complete that story, and then move on to other issues in the same category of creating history; and, specifically, the fundamental transformation that was required in order to change the Institution of Parliament itself, from its 30-years operations while basking in the glory of a ‘single-party’ Parliament; to a fundamentally new, properly functioning ‘multi-party’ Parliament . We will return to the story of Parliament’s fundamental transformation a little later, after we have completed the Constitution-making aspect. The making of the current Constitution of the United Republic, 1977.
The 1965 One-party Constitution was designated as an ‘Interim Constitution’; simply because it was not enacted in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the ‘Articles of Union’; which had directed, in article (vii), that: “The President of the United Republic, in agreement with the Vice President who is Head of the Executive in Zanzibar shall:- (a) Appoint a Commission to make proposals for a Constitution of the United Republic. (b) Summon a Constituent Assembly composed of representatives from Tanganyika and from Zanzibar to meet for the purpose of considering the proposals of the Commission aforesaid, and to adopt a Constitution for the United Republic”. However, the 1977 was enacted strictly in accordance with those directives.
A Commission of 20 members, 10 from Tanzania Mainland and 10 from Zanzibar, had earlier been appointed for the task of preparing proposals for the merger of TANU and ASP. This assignment had apparently been accomplished to the complete satisfaction of the two Principals.; because the decided to give it the additional task of making proposals for a permanent Constitution of the United Republic. And since I was the Secretary of that Commission, it became my responsibility to draft proposal for discussion by the Commission, as I had been doing during the just-ended exercise.
Eventually, our final proposals were submitted to the CCM National Executive Committee for endorsement; and, being a member of that Committee myself, I was mandated by the Commission to be prepared to make any clarifications that might be required by NEC. It was only at the end of this process, that the proposals were handed over to the Government, for the Parliamentary legislative process to take place. My contribution in the making of this Constitution was therefore quite substantial.
The Constitutional amendments.
The Tanganyika Independence Constitution, as well as the Tanganyika Republican Constitution, were so short-lived that they attracted no amendments whatsoever. But two amendments were made to the Interim Constitution of the United Republic of 1965; and a total of fourteen amendments have been made to the current Constitution, since its enactment on 25th April, 1977.
Amendments to the Interim Constitution.
The two amendments to the 1965 Interim Constitution, were made to “Union Matters” listed in the First Schedule of the Constitution. The first such amendment was caused by the break-up of the East African Currency Board in 1965, which necessitated the transfer of all matters that had been the responsibility of that Board to the respective partner states. The said matters were those concerning “coinage, currency, banks and all banking business, foreign exchange and exchange control”, It was therefore necessary to make amendments to the Constitution, in order to add these matters to the list of “Union Matters” which is provided in the First Schedule. That was done by Parliament on 10th June, 1965.
Similarly, as a result of the break-up of the former East African Community in 1967, it became necessary to transfer all matters that had been the responsibility of that Institution to the respective partner states. This necessitated the making of appropriate amendments to the Constitution, in order to add them to the list of “Union Matters”. There have people who have raised queries regarding why the list of “Union Matters” was increased from the original eleven items, to the current twenty-two. The reasons stated above may help to provide part of the answer.
Amendments to the current Constitution.
We will deal with only three major amendments, which are directly related to the major transformations that were taking place. These were (a) the Fifth Amendment (1984); (b) the Eighth amendment (1992); and (c) the Thirteenth amendment (2000).
The Fifth Amendment, 1984.
The 1984 amendments introduced very profound changes relating to the governance system, including:-
(i) Providing for the proper distribution of powers between the Executive; the Parliament; and the Ruling party.
(ii) Enhancing the authority of Parliament, and emphasizing its representative character.
(iii) Enhancing ‘Peoples’ power at the grassroots.
(iv) Consolidating the Union between Tanganyika and Zanzibar. (specifically, through the introduction of the Joint Finance Commission).
(vii) the introduction of a Bill of Rights in our Constitution.
These amendments were a direct result of new policies, which were announced by the Ruling party in its 1981 Guidelines, which included specific directives for the reform of the country’s Constitution. Hence for that purpose, the CCM National Executive Committee appointed a small Task Force, which was given the task of initiating and coordinating public discussions, with a view to making appropriate proposals for the amendment of the Union Constitution in order to realign it with the new party guidelines. I was lucky to be appointed member of that Task Force.
We adopted the now established procedure of preparing the equivalent of the previous Government “White Papers” for discussion by the general public throughout the country; which were coordinated at every level by the party’s Branch, District and Regional Political Committees. After final endorsement by the National Executive Committee, the proposals were submitted to the Government for the normal legislative process to take place; as was done earlier in the Constitution-making processes already discussed above.
The Eighth Amendment (1992).
The 1992 amendments were necessitated by the introduction of the multi-party political system; because new provision had to be made for:-
(i) the removal of the prohibition on the registration of other political parties;
(ii) the appointment of a Registrar of Political parties; and
(iii) the introduction of Women’s ‘Special Seats’ in Parliament, starting with a minimum of 15% of all the Parliamentary seats. These women MPs were to be appointed by their respective political parties, on the basis of the proportional representation (PR) system.
The Thirteenth Amendment (2000).
The 2000 amendments were the result of the work done by the Presidential Commission (the Kisanga Commission) which was appointed in 1998 by President Mkapa, in response to increasing demands from the Opposition parties for a new Constitution, which would provide changes in the following areas:-
(i) the two-government structure of the Union;
(ii) the extensive powers of the President;
(iii) the “simple majority’ win in Presidential elections;
(iv) the prohibition of private candidates’ participation in elections;
(v) the “first-past-the-post” electoral system;
(vi) the need to give powers to the voters to recall their MPs who fail to deliver; and
(vii) the need for an independent Electoral Commission.
This Commission, also adopted the methodology which had been used by the previous Nyalali Commission in 1991, of consulting the people in meetings held throughout the country, and eventually producing their Report based on the views of the people; which they submitted to President Mkapa. The proposals that had been accepted by the Government were subsequently put in a Bill for the consequential amendment of the Constitution, which was submitted to Parliament. The Bill’s salient features were the following:-
(i) It retained the existing provision for the two-government Union structure; as well as that of the President being elected on a simple majority of all the valid votes cast;
(ii) It made provision for a progressive increase in the percentage of the Women’s special seats, starting from 30% of all the available parliamentary seats;
(iii) It introduced the ‘Human Rights and Good Governance Commission’; which combined the dual mandates of a ‘Human Rights Commission’, and of an ‘Ombudsman’.
The fundamental transformation of the institution of Parliament.
The period that followed after the inauguration of the first multi-party Parliament was a busy period of reconstruction, in terms of reorganizing the institution of Parliament to reflect the new multi-party political environment. Thus, apart from my presiding over the core function of Constitution-making and Constitution amendments discussed above; I also had to preside over the even more urgent task of transforming the Institution of Parliament itself, in order to change it from its long entrenched habits and practices of over thirty years as a ‘One-party’ Parliament; to a new, vibrant, ‘multi-party’ Parliament.
The major areas involved in that transformation were the following:-
(i) the need for a permanent building for the carrying out of the Parliamentary functions;
(ii) the reorganization of Parliament’s internal procedures and processes, including the establishment of new administration structures, which would be suitable and more appropriate for the new political environment, and the vastly changed circumstances.
In addition, the opportunity also arose during that period, purely coincidentally, for the need to form new Pan-African Parliamentary organizations, in the making of which I was very closely involved. These were: (i) the SADC Parliamentary Forum in 1997; and (ii) the Pan African Parliament in 2000. We will return to this aspect in the next instalment.
Parliament’s new home in Dodoma and Zanzibar.
Parliament formally moved to Dodoma, starting from its first meeting following the 1995 first multi-party general elections. But it also moved out of the CCM Assembly Hall, and started holding all its sessions in a new conference center owned by the Local Authorities Provident Fund (LAPF); which was bought by the Central Government for use by Parliament. But I still considered it necessary to have Parliament’s own, purpose-built Parliament House. I therefore initiated and executed plans for its construction in an adjacent plot of land. At the same time, I also executed similar plans for the construction of new Parliament buildings at Tunguu in Zanzibar, and in Dar es Salaam, mainly for Committee meetings. All this was intended to mark the fundamental change from Parliament’s past of total dependence on the Government.
The reorganization of Parliament’s internal procedures and processes.
In January 1966, I tasked the Bunge Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Human Rights, to “investigate, consider, and later submit, recommendations for an appropriate structure for the operations of our new multi-party Parliament”. The Committee duly submitted its Report in April, 1996; and we immediately started working on its recommendations.
Their main recommendation was that Parliament should be re-established, in its operations, as an independent Institution whose Administration and Management will be separated from the Government. This was readily accepted, and was quickly implemented, when the Government presented a ‘Bill for an Act to provide for the Administration of Parliament’ which provided for the establishment of a ‘Parliamentary Service Commission’ that would take care of all matters relating to the employment of the Staff of Parliament (with the exception of the Clerk of the National Assembly, who would continue to be appointed by the President). This legislation came into force on 1st July, 1997.
Their main recommendation was that Parliament should be re-established, in its operations, as an independent Institution whose Administration and Management will be separated from the Government. This was readily accepted, and was quickly implemented, when the Government presented a ‘Bill for an Act to provide for the Administration of Parliament’ which provided for the establishment of a ‘Parliamentary Service Commission’ that would take care of all matters relating to the employment of the Staff of Parliament (with the exception of the Clerk of the National Assembly, who would continue to be appointed by the President). This legislation came into force on 1st July, 1997.
(will be continued next week)
piomsekwa@gmail.com/0754767576.
Source: Daily News and Cde Msekwa.
Fare thee well Mory Kanté
It is official that the legendary Guinean Musician Mory Kanté (29 March 1950––22 May 2020) left us at a young age of 7o. Those who remember how his hit Yeke yeke propelled him to stardom, will still miss him as the person who contributed hugely to the branding of African Music. RIP Mory Kanté.
Tuesday, 26 May 2020
Uhuru and Ruto's Political Divorce
Currently, in Kenya and partly the region, Covid-19 pandemic and the so-called political divorce involving UhuRuto marriage are the more prominently talked about things than anything else because of their effects and impacts on the politics of the country. When it comes to Covid-19 pandemic, there’s nothing new despite all warnings and heads-up on it. What’s new is the way[s] we’re going to pull all the stops and make do with it sensibly and scientifically––shall we aspire and want to survive it as an able and sane people. Denialism and hoo-has that we’ve already experienced in some quarters won’t help anybody. As well, neither bravery nor fear will help us but our levelheadedness.
However, on the daunting divorce menace that’s currently buffeting the UhuRuto political marriage, which shocked many––after former two suspects secured victory in the 2012 Kenyan general elections and formed the government––seems to attract many. It’s now an open secret that two Kenyan politicians that once enjoyed curt political and power coquetry, after escaping the fangs of the International Criminal Court in the Hague, namely President Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy, William Ruto, no longer see eye to eye or enjoy their bromance-cum-dalliance. What went terribly wrong? To know what went wrong, today, we’re taking a break from Covid-19 after being told that it’s here to dauntingly stay. We’re addressing the divorce because it’s here to pass just soon after the political showdown is over between the two. Before going further, please don’t say that there are some handshake, or headshake, that seem to have shaken the marriage. What’s certainly clear is that the shakeup is inevitable between the two big cheeses.
Those who know how UhuRuto chimeric and mule-like marriage came into being will agree with us that it’s a marriage of handiness whose one and only reason was to circumvent ICC encumbrance resulting from the cases instituted against Uhuru and Ruto as the kingpins of the Post-Election Violence of 2007. That’s because the duo’s in two antagonistic sides of Kenya political divide. This shows us how there’s no love between the couple but necessity, mere and sheer necessity but not love or anything close to. Nonetheless, after being in bed for over almost eight years without any more taste except veiled con and machinations, the duo is no longer interested in marriage or anything close to or like it. Thus, they seem hell-bent to sever everything that brought them together. First of all, the danger that the ICC posed are long gone. Thus, believe you me; the die had to be cast to end the marriage. Secondly, the duo has two conflictual and divergent agenda while the former works for a good legacy that’ll outlive his power while the latter has been nursing his presidential ambitions that seem to be cut short soon.
Thirdly, those who know how such tenuously tricky nuptials are entered will agree with us that UhuRuto posed to hit a snag even rock-bottom, soon the ICC failed to convict all or any of them. After freeing themselves from the fangs of the ICC, everybody started to think how to free himself from another and go back to normalcy. At this point and time, Ruto’s geese were to be roasted. This is normal for humans, especially the antagonistic ones. Who wants to always sleep in the same bed with his or her nemesis? Even a chippie wouldn’t regale such a peril.
Before proceeding with the proceedings of the nastiest and noisiest divorce, it’s important to mention that the likely loser in this tussle seems to have not learned from Kenya’s political narration and narrative. I once heard him saying that subjects such as history need not to be taught in universities. Thanks to his ignorance of history, now he needs it to help him swim this muddier water is in. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel once put it, “we learn from history that we do not learn from history.” Kenya’s political history shows that no VP’s ever made it to the Presidency except by way of accident as it happened for former President Daniel arap Moi who took office after the death of his boss Jomo Kenyatta. What’d have happened hadn’t Kenyatta died; nobody knows. The second VP to become president is Mwai Kibaki whose way to power also has something to do with an accident. This accident was Moi’s arrogance that sowed the seed of destruction within his party after deceiving many politicos in his party and settled for a rookie, current president to inherit his office. Tired of Moi and his manipulations, Kenyans decided to punish him by refusing his protegee to become their president for fear that Moi would still rule and run Kenya by proxy.
Kenya has had ten VPs since independence; and its only two who were able to become presidents. The rest were betrayed by their bosses namely Kenyatta, Moi and Kibaki. Who knew that Kenyatta would roast Jaramogi who forsook his chance of becoming Kenya’s first president and offered it to Kenyatta to end up being betrayed? Who thought that Moi would betray George Saitoti the man who’d never raised voice to his boss despite being highly educated than him? Who think Kibaki would prefer Uhuru––the person he beat in the 2002 elections, became the third president of Kenya thereof––to Kalonzo––whom he abandoned? Who’d think that Kibaki tosha––the mantra-cum-meme Odinga used to propel Kibaki to power––would be turned into Raila toka or Raila out? When it comes to trust, you can take tis to the bank. For, on earth, you can trust everybody except a politician and prostitute. Can Uhuru gambol Ruto and support Raila Odinga the person he ‘conquered’ in the last elections as was the case in the Kibaki and Kalonzo? Deeply ensnared, twosome’s rolling antics, gambits and theatrics speak volume that that’s what’s going to happen come Kenya’s 2022 elections. What’s obvious is that if Uhuru successfully used Ruto to become president is a reality while, to the contrary, Ruto seems to have had failed to use Uhuru to become president. he underestimated him for his peril and the fact that Uhuru is Moi’s mentee. However, the duo must congratulate themselves for using one another to avoid decaying behind ingots vis-Ã -vis the PEV case[s] they faced before the ICC.
In a nutshell, for Ruto to make it to presidency, he needs to go to the drawing board and wait for the 2027 elections. More importantly, there are three things Ruto can cash on or be cagey about. One, he must wish he’d be alive physically and politically that time. Two, he must still be politically germane at that time. And thirdly, like was in the case of Kibaki and his ascend to presidency, he’d take it easy. This isn’t the end of the world. More blessed are those who listen than those who talk. Listen to and seriously take this for your survival––and ignore it for your peril.
Source: African Executive Magazine.
Monday, 25 May 2020
Oh Poor UhuRuto Marriage
When Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto entered in the marriage of convenience after miraculously escaped the International Criminal Court's fangs, many did not know that thereafter the duo would part ways bitterly and brutally. Soon after everybody settling down after surviving, there came UhuRaila under what is known as Handshake that resulted to the Headshake. The rest is history. Oh poor UhuRuto. Who used whom? Who knows?
Wednesday, 20 May 2020
MY 15- YEARS TENURE IN THE SPEAKER’S OFFICE.
Our article of last week, terminated at the point when I was discussing my reminiscences of my second tenure in the Speaker’s office which commenced in 1990; when I was elected Deputy Speaker, and later as Speaker of the National Assembly until 2005. But, because of strict limitations of editorial space, some important aspects were not covered, a deficiency which will be partly remedied in today’s article.
One of my published books is titled “The Story of the Tanzania Parliament” (Nyambari Nyangwine Publishers, Dar es Salaam, 2013); in which I have also told part of the story of my experiences during that period; but even that still does not cover the whole range of experiences which I gained there from; that could usefully be shared with others; particularly in the leadership area of decision-making.
The main function of any Speaker, is to preside over the proceedings of Parliament; a function which is commonly compared with that of a referee, or that official who controls the game in some of the sports; whose primary responsibility is to ensure that the rules of the game are strictly observed by the players; and who has adequate power and authority to punish anyone who dares violate those rules.
But the books of authority on Parliamentary practice and procedure, also provide that in carrying out his responsibilities, the Speaker is also expected “to maintain the high standards of dignity and impartiality which that office demands”; and also “ to act wisely and firmly, preferably with a small dose of humour, when tempers in the House are on edge”.
These are some of the basic tenets that I constantly endeavoured to observe, throughout the 15-years of my tenancy of the Speaker’s Chair.
The Speaker’s Rulings.
Decisions which are made by the Speaker (or any other person presiding) from the dignity of Speaker’s Chair, are called “Speaker’s Rulings”. They carry the same legal status as ‘Court Rulings”, in the sense that they can indeed be challenged, but only through special procedures that are laid down for that purpose. (on Monday of last week, I received telephone calls from some journalists who were seemingly challenging Speaker Job Ndugai’s recent ruling relating to certain CHADEMA MPs. But being mindful of this fact, I restrained myself accordingly from making any comments).
My extraordinary good leadership fortune.
In last week’s article, I referred to what is said in the Books of Authority on the subject of ‘leadership’ regarding how people become leaders; namely that there are those “who stumble into leadership because of the times they live in, or the circumstances in which they find themselves”; and I wholeheartedly placed myself in this category; simply because I happened to be there in Parliament just at the right time; when great and fundamental political transformation and reconstruction changes were taking place in our country; in which Parliament had a big historical role to play, in legislating for these fundamental, non-recurring, major historical changes.
In this article, will refer specifically to the Parliament’s most core functions of Constitution-making and Constitutional amendment, wherein I found myself in the happy position of being a very close eye-witness of these historic processes in the earlier ones, but a very active player in the case of the current Constitution. The relevant Constitutions are:
(i)the Tanganyika Independence Constitution of 1961;
(ii) the Tanganyika Republican Constitution, 1962;
(iii) the interim Constitution of the United Republic, 1964;
(iv) the ‘One-party’ Constitution, 1965, and finally (v) the (permanent) Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977.
I will assume that the importance of the country’s Constitution needs no greater emphasis, or even more detailed elaboration, beyond what is said in the paragraph which follows below.
The raison d’etre for having a country’s Constitution.
A country’s Constitution is the basic, or fundamental law, of every country. It is what lays down the country’s governance Organs, namely the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary; and describes their separate functions. It also provides for the distribution of powers among them, as well as the working relationships between them.
The need for “Constitutions” arises from the fact that, in order for human beings to be able to provide for their material needs more easily, and to develop their cultural aspirations more richly; they need to associate closely with each other. But once this association is achieved, the resulting community needs to be organized in some definite way, by providing for specific leadership organs which will generally coordinate the work of its members, and reconcile their often conflicting interests. This is true even of social clubs, associations, cooperative enterprises, and other registered groups.
But the wider association of people within a nation state, or country, also needs to be similarly organized. This is what explains the need for every country to have its own Constitution.
Constitution-making in Tanganyika/Tanzania.
In this context, the expression “Constitution-making” includes its associated process of “Constitutional amendments” which, in our case, has been an on-going process. Thus, over the years since independence, the country’s Parliament has enacted the variety of Constitutions listed above; plus not less than fourteen amendments to the permanent 1977 Constitution, since its enactment on 25th April, 1977.
The paragraphs that follow below, are intended to throw some light on how the exercise was conducted in each of the relevant cases. But the process of constitutional amendments only started with the Interim Union Constitution of 1965, for the simple reason that the Tanganyika independence and Republican Constitutions were so short-lived, that they attracted no amendments whatsoever! We will start with Constitution-making, and come back to the Constitutional amendments a little later
The Tanganyika Independence Constitution, 1961.
I was a close witness of only the commencement part of the process of making this Constitution, which was the Constitutional conference that was held in Dares Salaam from 27th to 29th March, 1961; (which I had been assigned to service as an official from the Speaker’s Office). But even at that conference, it is only the proposals for the contents of the proposed independence Constitution that were discussed and agreed upon. The remainder of the process for enacting this Constitution, took place in the British Parliament in London. This was the common practice which the British colonial Government applied to all their Territories at the time when they were being granted independence. Thus, it was premised on a ‘standard model Constitution’ based on the constitutional structure of the United Kingdom. This made it fundamentally defective in a significant number of areas.
The Tanganyika Republican Constitution, 1962.
I was again only a close witness in the making of this Constitution, when the relevant Bill was presented to Parliament for its enactment.
The Republican Constitution was completely “homemade”, and largely benefitted from the application of the principle of “peoples’ participation in decision making”; in the sense that the Government first prepared and published its proposals for the envisaged Constitution in May 1962, which were published in ‘Government White Paper no, 1 of 1962’, titled “Proposals of the Tanganyika Government for a Republic”. (The term “white Paper” was a reflection of the British Government practice of so naming all ‘discussion papers’ issued by the Government).
This white Paper was crafted in simple, non-legal language, in order to make the proposals easy for everybody to understand; and members of the public were invited to submit their views and comments on those proposals.
It is only after the peoples’ views had been collected and analysed, that the Government introduced, on 23rd November, 1962, the “Bill for an Act to declare the Constitution of Tanganyika” in the National Assembly, which had first converted itself into a “Constituent Assembly” for that purpose. In his speech introducing that Bill, Prime Minister Rashidi Kawawa disclosed that: “although the Government White Paper referred to the making of amendments to the existing Constitution, we have thought it best to substitute a completely new and self-contained document, to mark such a fundamental change”.
The Interim Constitution of the United Republic.
My involvement in the making of this Constitution was again only during the final stages, when the “Acts of Union were brought to Parliament for ratification. This interim Constitution was initially declared in the “Articles of Union”; whose relevant articles read as follows:-
(iii) During the interim period, the Constitution of the United Republic shall be the Constitution of Tanganyika, so modified as to provide for: -
a separate Executive and Legislature for Zanzibar, from time to time constituted in accordance with the existing laws of Zanzibar, and having exclusive authority within Zanzibar for matters other than those reserved to the Parliament and the Executive of the United Republic;
(b) the appointment of two Vice-Presidents, one of whom (being a person normally resident in Zanzibar) shall be the Head of the aforesaid Executive in and for Zanzibar, and shall be the principal assistant of the President of the United Republic in the discharge of his executive functions in relation to Zanzibar.
(c) the representation of Zanzibar in the Parliament of the United Republic.
(d) such other matters as may be expedient or desirable, to give effect to the United Republic, and to these articles.”
The “articles of Union” also provided that “the first President of the United Republic shall be Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere”; and that within a period of one year, “the President of the United Republic, in agreement with the Vice-President who is also the Head of the Executive in Zanzibar, shall appoint a Commission to make proposals for a (permanent) Constitution of the United Republic”. However, before the end of that year, the two Principals agreed to postpone that exercise to a later date.
The ‘one-party’ Constitution, 1965.
My involvement in the making of this Constitution was again peripheral, commencing only when the Bill for its enactment was submitted to Parliament at the end of a lengthy process of “peoples’ participation”; which was applied also in the making of this Constitution, for the same purpose of ensuring that the contents of this Constitution would reflect the widest consensus of peoples’ views and preferences. For that purpose, President Nyerere had, in January 1964, appointed a Commission to undertake that task, of obtaining the views of the people throughout the country, and subsequently, to making its recommendations for “a suitable constitutional framework, which would guarantee the proper functioning of democratic principles within a one-party state”.
After the Commission had completed its work and submitted its final Report to the President; the Government again issued a ‘White Paper”, which was submitted to Parliament for consideration at its April 1965 session. And thereafter, the Government prepared the “Interim Constitution of Tanzania Bill” which was submitted to the Union Parliament on 5th July 1965. The “Interim One-party Constitution” of the United Republic, was enacted on 10th July, 1965. The next in line was the making of the (permanent) current “Constitution of the United Republic”.
This was the Constitution in whose making I participated most directly; right from when the idea of its making was conceived by the CCM National Executive Committee, and through its implementation up to the stage when the draft proposals were handed over to the Government for its enactment by Parliament. (Will be continued next week).
piomsekwa@gmail.com / 0754767576.
Source: Daily News and Cde Msekwa Himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)