Mudavadi’s mystery earthquake

From left: Ford Kenya leader Moses Wetang’ula, Deputy President William Ruto, ANC boss Musalia Mudavadi and Jibebe’s William Kabogo at Bomas of Kenya on January 23, 2022 during ANC's ADC.

Evans Habil | Nation Media Group

          

                By Makau Mutua
Professor at SUNY Buffalo Law School and Chair of the KHRC.
I’ve always had a soft spot for ANC’s Musalia Mudavadi. Although he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he’s always been a sympathetic chap.
He’s soft-spoken and carries himself with a gentlemanly mien. Fact is, Mr Mudavadi is simply a nice guy. Or was. But what happened last Sunday – at his self-proclaimed Bomas of Kenya “earthquake” – could transform him forever. And not for the better.
        It’s true that desperate times call for desperate measures. But was political life so intolerable Mr Mudavadi had to jump into bed with Deputy President William Ruto, a man he’s excoriated with utter disdain and mockery? Let’s peel the onion. Mr Mudavadi had promised an earthquake. Something on the magnitude of 8 on the Richter scale. He had ominously warned that Kenya’s political landscape would never be the same again. I waited with bated breath.
        The first anti-climax was the choice of MC, one Senator Cleophas Malala. Mr Malala is known for his political somersaults and flip-flops than for any serious work as a legislator. He fulminates endlessly about theatrics. He could be a bona fide comedian. If you expect a political earthquake, you don’t invite a comic to preside over the event. You need gravitas – someone with oomph. That was Mr Mudavadi’s first letdown. Secondly, you make sure you are the focal point. You must never be overshadowed.
Roadkill in politics
But Mr Mudavadi had to be himself. He’s always been Mr Nice Guy, a defect that’s made him roadkill in Kenya’s treacherous politics. Americans say that politics ain’t beanbag. Take the 2002 elections. Mr Mudavadi holds the unenviable distinction of the shortest serving vice-president in Kenya’s history. Former President Daniel Moi appointed him VP on November 4, 2002. He was out on January 3, 2003, a fleeting 60 days later.
        Mr Moi, the self-styled professor of politics, had elevated Mr Mudavadi to woo the Luhya as running mate to Kanu’s Uhuru Kenyatta. They were trounced by nearly two-thirds of the vote by Narc’s Mwai Kibaki. To add injury to insult, Mr Mudavadi was ejected from his Sabatia seat.
        Kenyan voters can be very good when they are good. They punished Mr Mudavadi for being Mr Moi’s patsy. You could smell change in the air in 2002. Kenyans were sick of Mr Moi and the Kanu kleptocracy. On the wings in Narc were the Young Turks who had led the Second Liberation. It was clear that no one associated with Mr Moi would survive the Narc juggernaut.
        But voters punished Mr Mudavadi for another reason – for lacking guts. He was weak-kneed and failed to stand up to Mr Moi.
People do not want weak leaders. They may not want a bully, but they surely don’t want a leader whose lunch is eaten by others without a fight. That’s been Mr Mudavadi’s political identity. In the One Kenya Alliance (OKA), he was clearly second fiddle to Wiper’s Kalonzo Musyoka. But rather than stay in the tent and fight for his share, he fled when the kitchen got too hot. Taking flight is a mark of cowardice, but I might have forgiven him if he hadn’t jumped from the frying pan and into the fire.
    The real earthquake at Bomas wasn’t that Mr Mudavadi vomited on Azimio la Umoja. No. The main event wasn’t Mr Mudavadi announcing his lame presidential bid, which even he himself doesn’t believe in. The actual earthquake was Mr Ruto and UDA swooping in like barracudas and swallowing Mr Mudavadi and his brigand whole.
    At his own event, Mr Mudavadi was turned into a giggling bride – nay, bridesmaid – by Mr Ruto. Mr Ruto marched in there with his troops and took over. Some people on social media suggested – and I have no evidence one way, or another – that Mr Ruto had paid for the ANC jamboree. But before Mr Ruto arrived, the event had been turned into a fiasco when Mr Mudavadi’s OKA co-principals – Mr Musyoka and Kanu’s Mr Gideon Moi – stormed out after learning Mr Ruto would strut in there and take over.
Kept his mouth shut
Mr Mudavadi didn’t even have the cojones to tell his OKA-mates that Mr Ruto was chief guest. Ford Kenya’s Moses Wetang’ula, an OKA quisling, knew but kept his mouth shut. Bomas wasn’t Mr Mudavadi’s earthquake. It was Mr Ruto’s, but why? Mr Mudavadi has no purchase in the Mulembe Nation.
    So, why would Mr Ruto want him as a bride, or bridesmaid – even if you throw in Mr Wetang’ula as a freebie? Is it a head fake by Mr Ruto to hoodwink the Luhya? Or could he, in the last minute, step down for Mr Mudavadi and become the puppet master?
    Perhaps Mr Ruto has sensed defeat. He could back Mr Mudavadi to spite Mr Kenyatta and ODM’s Raila Odinga. Then he would back the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) in a Mudavadi regime to become Prime Minister and run for president in 2027. That’s an earthquake.
Makau Mutua is SUNY Distinguished Professor and Margaret W. Wong Professor at Buffalo Law School. He’s chair of KHRC. @makaumutua

Source: Sunday Nation tomorrow.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY MHE. RAIS SAMIA SULUHU HASSAN

 

HISTORICAL INPUTS INTO ZANZIBAR’s REVOLUTION OF JANUARY 1964.

 

Earlier  month,   precisely   on  12th  January  2022;   Zanzibar  proudly    marked   its  58th  anniversary    of  the  January  1964  revolution,  which  overthrew   Sultan  Jamshid  Abdullah’s    Arab    minority  government ;  and,  indeed,   “ all  men  and  women  of  goodwill”  joined  the  President  and  the  people  of  Zanzibar    in  celebrating  this  auspicious  occasion.  
        At  different  time  periods  in  the  records  of  mankind;  some  wise  men,  or  gurus,    have  said  the  following  about  history:- “History  is  about  past  politics,  and  present  politics   is   history  in  the  making”    (British  Historian   John  Robert  Seeley,  (1834 – 95);  and   also  that  “History  is  too  important  to  be  left  to  historians  alone”  (Iain  Macleod:  British  politician  1913 – 70).

        The  history  of  the  Arab   colonial  domination  over  the  African   majority  people  of  Zanzibar is  a  long  story,  which    actually  covers   several   centuries.  But  because  history “is  too   important  to  be  left  to  Historians  alone”; and notwithstanding  the  fact  that   I  have  narrated  this  story  before  in  this  column  and  elsewhere  in  my  writings;  I  believe  it  is  imperative   that  the  story  should  be  retold  even   now,   as  we   proudly  celebrate  its   58th   anniversary;    particularly   for  the  benefit  of  the  younger  generation  of  Tanzanians,  and   of   those  others  who  might  not  have  heard  it  before. 
Arab  rule  in  Zanzibar.
The  relevant  history  books  show   that  for  quite  a  long  time,  Zanzibar  was   an  Arab  colony,  initially  ruled  from  Oman  as  part  of  the  then  vast  Arab  dominated  Oman  commercial  empire  in  East  Africa.  But  “a  war  of  succession”  erupted  in  Muscat  when  Sultan  Said  Seyyed  died  in  1856,  with a   strong  faction  in  Zanzibar  demanding  succession.  They  were  successful   with  the  intervention  of  the  British,  under  what  became  known  as  the  “Lord  Canning  Award”  of  1861;  when   Zanzibar  and  Oman  became  separate  Sultanates.                                                                                   But  the  new  Sultan  of  Zanzibar,  being  apprehensive  of  possible  attacks  from  Oman,  agreed  to  British  protection  on  February  17th, 1890.  This  is  when  Zanzibar  became  a  “British  Protectorate”,  administered  locally  by  an  official  called  “the  British  Resident” . 
         It  is  this  British  Administration  which  arranged  and  supervised  a  series  of   controversial   general  elections,   starting  from  the first  general   election   of  1957;  and  followed  by  others  which  were  held   in   January  1961;  June  1961;  and   July  1963.  The  results  of  this  last  general  election  are  what  were  used  by  the  British Administration  to  grant  the  instruments  of  independence  to  the  Arab  Sultan   Jamshid  bin  Abdulah,  at  midnight  on   9th  December,   1963;  whose  government  was   subsequently    overthrown,  only   a  month  later  during  the  night  of  11th  January,  1964.
The   blatant  unfairness  of  these   elections.
 The   English   word  “gerrymandering”,  means   “the  act  of  changing  the size and  borders  of  an electoral  area,   in  order to  give  an  unfair  advantage  to  one  of  the parties  in  an election”.   During  the  whole of   its  colonial  Administration, Zanzibar  has  a  recorded   history  of  closely fought,  highly  controversial,  and   even violent  post-election  occurrences,  after  every  such election;  due  to   the “politics  of  hatred  and  animosity”, which  practically  divided  that  country into  two  warring  parties, which   were   unwilling,  or  unable,  to  cooperate  and  work  together. 
        The  Zanzibar  electoral  process,  (the  same  as  that  of  Tanzania  Mainland); started  with  the  formation  of  political  parties, which  would compete  in  the  proposed  elections. The  first such  political   party  to  be  formed  in  Zanzibar  was  the  Zanzibar  Nationalist  Party (ZNP)  which was  established  in  December,  1955,  whose  members  were   mainly  the  Arab  subjects  of  the  Sultan.  On  the  African  side,  a  union  was  formed  between  the  “Africa  Association”   and  the   “Shirazi  Association”,  which  gave  birth  to  the  Afro-Shirazi  Party (ASP).  
For  the  purposes  of  the  1957  general  election,  Zanzibar  was  divided  into   six  constituencies;  in  which  the  Afro-Shirazi   party  won  in   five  of  those  six  constituencies;  while  the  “Muslim  Association (one  of  the  two Indian  Associations)  won  the  remaining  constituency.  The  Zanzibar  Nationalist  party  did  not  win   any  seat.
        The  aftermath  was a  terrible  disaster.   The “Report  of  the  Provincial  Administration  for  the  year  1958” says  this:- “This  resounding  defeat  of  the  ZNP  greatly contributed  to the  rise  in  the   political  temperature  which,  from then  onwards, continued  to  gain  momentum.  Most  notable was  the  extent  to  which  politics  affected  every  aspect  of everyday  life  in  Zanzibar: when traders,  peasants,  labourers,  fishermen,  and  even  housewives;   were  all affected.  Villagers  in   the rural  areas  argued  among  themselves;  funerals  and  religious  ceremonies  were  boycotted  by  members  of  rival  political  parties.   

        Women  even  pawned  their  clothes  in  order  to  raise  transport  fares  to  attend  political  meetings. Such  were  the  immediate  results  of  the  first  common  roll  elections  for  these  formerly  peaceful  Islands”.
The  second  general  election, January  1961.
For  this  election,  the  number  of  constituencies  had  been  increased  to  twenty   two;  and  that  is  when  the  first  gerrymandering  activities  were  carried out  in  favour  of  the  Arab  parties. The  tiny  Stone  Town  constituency,  a  predominantly  Arab  and  Indian  residential  area   with   only 1622  registered  voters,  was   split  into  two  constituencies;  deliberately  ignoring  Ng’ambo   constituency,  a  predominantly  African  residential  area  with  4,853  registered   voters.
        However,  some  positive  constitutional changes  had  been  introduced,  including  the  enfranchisement  of  women;  and  the  lowering  of  the voting  age  from 25  to  21 years. The  combined  effect  of  these two measures  was  to  considerably increase the  voting  population,  from  the  previous  39,833  who  were registered  in  July  1957;  to  94,310   registered  in   January  1961. 

        And  in  the meantime,  a  new  Arab  party  had  also   been  formed,  known  as  the  Zanzibar  and  Pemba  Peoples’  party  (ZPPP)   based  in  Pemba.   The  results  of this   second  general  election  were  that  the  Afro-Shirazi  party  obtained  ten  Legislative  seats, eight  in  Zanzibar  and  two  in  Pemba.  The  Zanzibar  Nationalist  party  obtained  nine  seats,  all  of  them  in  Pemba;  while  the  newly  registered  Zanzibar  and  Pemba  Peoples’  party  won  three  seats,  all  of  them also   in  Pemba. 

Two  of   the  ZPPP  members   joined  the  Zanzibar  Nationalist  party;    while  the  remaining  member  joined  the  Afro-Shrazi   party.  This  produced  stalemate,  because  each  side  now  had  eleven  seats.  Hence,  no  side  had  obtained  the  required  majority  which  would  entitle  it  to  form  the   government.
The  third  general  election,  June,  1961
In  these  circumstances,  a  fresh  general  election  was  quickly  organized,  which  took  place  on  1st  June,  1961.  One  more  constituency  was  created  in  Pemba,  on  the  pretext  that   “ an  odd  number  of  twenty  three,  would   avoid  a  repeat  of  the  stalemate  which  had  been  caused  by  the  even  number  of  twenty-two  constituencies”. But  in  reality,  this  was  another  gerrymandering  exercise, which was deliberately  undertaken  in  order  to give  advantage to the  two  Arab  dominated  parties,  which,  as  shown  by  the  January  election results,   had  their greatest  strength  there   in  Pemba.  
        The  results  of  the  third  general  election  were  that  the  Afro-Shirazi  party   and     the  Zanzibar  Nationalist  party,   obtained  ten  seats  each;  while th  Zanzibar  and  Pemba  Peoples’  party retained  its  three  seats.   Its  members  once  again  teamed  up  with  ASP  and  ZNP  in  the same  way  as  they  had  done  before;  thus  giving  the  ASP  eleven   seats,  and  the  ZNP  getting  twelve  seats.  
        This  gave  the  colonial  Administration   precisely  what  they  wanted,  in  their  conspiracy  to  grant Zanzibar’ s independence  to  the  Arabs,  namely     an  Arab  majority   (of  only  one) in  the  Legislative  Council.  Thus,  the  instruments  of  “Self  government”  were    handed  over  to  the  ZNP/ZPPP  coalition.  But  this    action   produced  another  disaster,  for  it  was  immediately  followed  by  bloody  post-election  riots,  that  reportedly   “left  sixty  eight  people  dead;  and  more  than  350  others  seriously   injured”.
The  Lancaster  House  constitutional  conference.
This was soon followed  by  a  constitutional  conference, which  was  held  in  Lancaster  House,  London,  in  1962;  in order  to  determine  the  constitutional  way  forward to full  independence.    At  that  conference, the  Sfro-shirazi  delegates had insisted  on  two  conditions: One,  that  another general  election  be  held  before  the  granting  of  independence;  and  two,  that  independence  be  granted  in  1962. The  British  Government   agreed  to  hold  another  general  election  in  1963;  thus  rejecting the  demand  that   independence  be  granted  in  1962.

The  fourth  general  election,  July  1963.
For  the  fourth  general  election,   eight  new  constituencies  were  created,  thus  making  a  total  of  thirty-one  Legislative   Council   seats.  The  results  of  the  fourth  general  election  were  that  the  Afro-Shrazi  party  obtained  a   majority  of  54%  of  all  the  valid   votes  counted,  but  secured  only thirteen  Legislative  Council  seats;  the  Zanzibar  Nationalist  party  got  six  seats;  and  the  Zanzibar   and  Pemba  Peoples’  party    obtained    six  seats.                   Hence,   although   the  Afro-Shirazi  party  had  obtained  13,000  more  votes  than  those  of  the  ZNP  and  ZPPP  parties  combined;   it  obtained  only  13  seats;  while  the  two  Arab  dominated  parties  (with  a  minority  of  the  valid  votes  cast),   won  a  bigger  total  of  eighteen   seats!   A   clear   demonstration  of   the  naked  effects   of  the  British  Administration’s  gerrymandering  foul   games. 
        It  is  on  the  basis  of  these  results  that  the  British  government  unilaterally   decided  to ngrant  the  instruments  of  independence  to   Sultan   Jamshid   Abdullah,  even   against  the  warning  of  two  wise  men:   the  British  Resident  in  Zanzibar  Sir  George  Mooring;  and  the  President  of  the  Republic  of  Tanganyika   Mwalimu  Julius  Nyerere;   who  both  warned  the  British  government  against  granting  independence  in  such  controversial  circumstances;  but  their  warning  was  simply  ignored   by   the  British  government;  which    just  went  ahead  and  granted  the  instruments  of  independence  to  Sultan  Jamshid  bin  Abdullah;  who  thus  became  the  Head  of  State  of  independent  Zanzibar,  at  a   ceremony  held  at  midnight  on  9th  December,  1963.    
        This  must  have   been  the  “straw  that  broke  the  camel’s  back”  as  far  as  the  Afro-shrazi  party  was  concerned;  and  they  quickly  began  making  top-secret   preparations  to  overthrow  the  Sultan’s  government. These  preparations  culminated  in  the  successful,  glorious  revolution;   which  took  place  during  the  night  of  11th  January,  1964. 
        It  is  therefore  safe  to  presume  that  the  root  cause  of   this  revolution  was,  primarily,  because  the   Afro-Shirazi  party  had  been  continuously  frustrated    by  being  denied  their  rights  as  winners,   at  every   general   election  since  1957;    mainly  as  a  result  of   the    gerrymandering  tactics,  and   other  election    malpractices,  which  were  undertaken  by  the  British  Administration,  aimed at  ensuring  the  success  of  their  favoured    Arab  dominated  parties.
         The  Zanzibar  ‘ insiders’  (such  as  the  late  Aboud  Jumbe   et  al,) have narrated  that  this  revolution  was  planned,   directed  and  effectively  managed,   by  a  “Committee  of  Fourteen”;  composed  of  young,  committed,  daring   and  extremely  dedicated  revolutionary  cadres  of   the  Afro-Shirazi   party;    whose  sole  objective   was   “to  liberate  Zanzibar  from  the  unfairly   imposed  Arab  rule  of  Sultan  Jamshid  Abdullah”.    

        For  us   people  who were  following  those   events   on  radio    the  next  morning,  it  was  the  booming    voice  of  one  person,  who  introduced   himself  as  “Field  Marshal  John  Okello” 
that  dominated  the  air  waves;   when  he  was   giving  various   orders   and  military-type  commands,  pronouncing  the  range  of  punishments  that   anyone  who  dared  disobey  such  orders,  would  suffer. 
        But  his  name  does  not  appear   on  the  list  of  members  of  the “ Committee  of  Fourteen”,   and  his  actual    role  in  the   activities  that  led  to  the  successful  overthrow  of  the  Sultan’s  government,    remain  unclear.    He   was  soon  sidelined,  and  actually  pushed  out  of  Zanzibar;    and  Mhe.   Abedi  Amani  Karume,  the  President  of  the  Afro-Shirazi  Party,    was  declared  President  of  the  Peoples  Republic  of  Zanzibar.    May  the   late  President   Karume’s   soul  rest  in  eternal  peace.  AMEN.
piomsekwa@gmail.com  / 0754767576.

Chanzo: Daily News and Cde Msekwa.

Is Western failing in Africa or Africa is failing western democracy?

Many people get it faultily vis-à-vis western democracies. Western democracy’s been synonymously with western countries, which glorify and reify themselves as being successful and mature ‘democracies’ even though they’re practically not if analysed historically and compared and contrasted to realities on the ground.  I must say it from the outset, democracy wasn’t born in the west but everywhere. 

    Again, what did the western countries get fittingly and African countries erroneously as far as democracy is concerned? Before answering this question, I must ponder on the major question. Is western democracy failing in Africa? Yes, it’s failed so badly so to speak. Why? Because it is fake, and half baked. How can there be acceptable and true democracy without justice and wealth? How can there be spot-on democracy without economic democracy that enables every human to get basic human needs? How can there be true democracy while the one in the west is different from the one in Africa? If anything, this is what sets African countries and their western counterparts apart.
        Western ‘democracies’ are ‘ideal’ because of the wealth they accumulated through robbing others by means of colonisation. They robbed others so as to become ideal democracies and those robbed became unideal democracies. This is what is missing in Africa. That is why western democracy seems to fail squarely in Africa. And its failure heralds the return of nasty dictatorships and military juntas, which are now crawling back methodically under the guise of assuaging the situation.
        Those who evidenced the cheers in Guinea, Mali and recently Burkina Faso after democratically elected governments were pulled down, will agree with me that there cannot be any meaningful/successful/ideal democracy without economic muscles. If poverty that’s become normalized and internalized in Africa continues unabated, many governments will be pulled down. I wonder to see civilians in the streets cheering the army after taking over as has been the case in the above countries where juntas have ceased powers not for the aim of addressing the anomalies but just robbing the same cheering people. 

        We evidenced it in Sudan when its long time tinpot dictator, Omar Bashir’s pulled down. What did cheering-Sudanese get thereafter as the junta’s now butchering them every day? Whenever I see muttons cheering the hyaenas, I break down. These victims fail to see the patterns. Instead, they see short time euphoria either because of desperateness or ignorance. Whenever I see a young chimp celebrating the scorching of the forest, I temporarily and theoretically don’t get it. In the long run, I practically get it. I know what ignorance causes to the body harbouring or housing it.
Many people blame the African Union and other regional bodies for failure to put a stop on the coups. How’ll they do so without any economic wherewithal? Without addressing poverty, Africa’ll remain dangerously precarious.
        Apart from poverty, African governments are in harm’s way because of corruption, nepotism, ineptness, bad governance and dependence. Shall they not smell the coffee and do something about them, it is about when but not if they’ll be ousted, especially currently a new crop of opportunistic young soldiers is taking over although they too have nothing to offer except to replicate the same as has been in Sudan. This said, desperate citizens who cheer them are doing so for their peril. Citizens need to know that the ploy of fighting corruption that’s become the ditty of corrupt military gives them no hope. All catfish, goatfish and hagfish, among others, have barbels.
        It is sad that human failed to learn from history. So sad that we’ve run out of road. For, if they learned from it is nothing but not to learn from it. Almost all foetid dictators from Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini to Idi Amin and Jean-Bedel Bokassa chaunted the same jingle when they took over. Again, what did they offer? Nothing but the replication of the same! Let me offer an answer from one great revolutionary, Museveni, president of Uganda.  When he ousted Tito Okelo, the head of the then military junta, said that “the problem of Africa are leaders who overstay in power.” What did he offer? He just overstayed. What have Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Daqalo in Sudan, Abdel-Fattah al Sisi in Egypt, Col. Assimi Goita in Mali and Lt. Col. Mamadou Doumbouya in Guinea offered? Just the same. What do you call doing the same thing over and over again expect different results?
Has western democracy in Africa failed or Africa has failed it? How many governments should be brought down for Africa to smell a rat if not the coffee? 

Source: African Executive Magazine tomorrow.

Barua Rais, badili mfumo wetu wa elimu wa kikoloni na kukariri

Mheshimiwa Rais, nakusalimia kwa jina la Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania.
Japo zimepita siku nyingi bila kuwasiliana nawe, kuna mambo yaliingilia kati ambayo sitaki kuyataja. Hata hivyo, leo narejea kuwasiliana nawe kuhusiana na suala zima la ujinga unaoitwa elimu katika taifa letu.  Naenda moja kwa moja kwenye mada. Juzi niliona baadhi ya watanznaia wakisherehekea ‘ushindi’ wa watoto wao waliomaliza kidato cha nne. Wale ambao watoto 3ao waliongoza au kupata madaraja ya juu, bila shaka walishangilia na kuona kama nusu ya njia ya mafanikio wameitimiza wakati si kweli.
        Leo naandika kutoa mfano kwa taifa ambalo, kwa sasa, linashikilia nafasi ya kwanza kuwa na wananchi wengi waliopiga shule kweli kweli na pia rekodi ya maisha mazuri kuliko mataifa yote duniani kwa mujibu wa utafiti uliofanywa na shirika la US.News. Hivyo, naongea toka kwenye nchi ambayo hata bila ya utafiti huu, inasifika kwa maisha yake ya hali ya juu. Hata hivyo, leo siongelei ubora wa maisha kama vile huduma za hali ya juu za afya kwa kila mwananchi na mkazi, elimu, ajira, na mambo mengine mengi. Leo naongelea elimu. Hapa Kanada, hakuna mambo ya divisheni one au zero. Watoto wanasoma kuanzia darasa la kwanza hadi 12 na wakishatimiza idadi fulani ya vipindi wanaruhusiwa kujiunga na vyuo vikuu wanavyochagua. Hapa, hakuna mtihani wa kumaliza darasa la 12 bali kusoma na kufikia sifa zinazohitajika kujiunga na chuo kikuu. 
        Kihistoria, mtindo wa sasa tulio nao tuliurithi kwa wakoloni kwa nia ya kutuchelewesha. Sababu ya pili ni umaskini.  Kwani, tulikuwa na chuo kimoja kikuu cha umma.  Hivyo, kuepuka kuoneana, tuliendeleza utaratibu wa kuwakaririsha watoto wetu mambo mengine hata yasiyo wasaidia ili washinde na kwenda chuo kikuu. Je tunapaswa kuendelea na utaratibu huu wa kizamani wakati tuna vyuo vingi vikuu au kuubadilisha mfumo wet una kuanza kutoa elimu yenye mashiko badala ya kushindanisha ujinga?
        Kuna watu wengi nawafahamu waliopata alama za juu kwenye mitihani yao ya kidato cha nne na cha sita wakaingia chuo kikuu na kushindwa vibaya sana. Hii ni kutokana na mazingira na vigezo vilivyowekwa kujenga tabaka la watu wanaosoma ili wakariri na kushinda lakini wasioweza kujisaidia hata kimaisha wanapotoka vyuoni hata mashuleni. Kwanini tusibadili utaratibu huu ili kuwapa watoto wetu fursa za kusoma bila presha ya mitihani ili waelewe wanachopaswa kufanya baada ya kumaliza elimu zao hata angalau wajiajiri na kuwaajiri wenzao.
Mheshimiwa Rais, nakumbuka siku moja ukiwafunda baadhi ya watanzania ulisema kuwa shuleni ulikuwa mwanafunzi wa wastani na hukuwa umesoma sana mwanzoni ulipoajiriwa ukiwa mdogo. Lakini kwa sasa uko wapi? Je wewe ulipata daraja gani? Tukichulia mfano wako, madaraja ya ushindi maana yake ni mgawanyiko. Tunamgawanya nani kupata nini?
        Hapa Kanada mambo ya mshindi na mshindwa yalishazikwa. Mwanafunzi akimaliza darasa la 12 anakwenda chuo kikuu siyo kwa ushindi bali kumaliza idadi ya masomo yanayotakiwa.
Hawa waliofanikiwa hata bila kufikia kidato cha nne walipata division gani? Japo siungi mkono ukihiyo kama nilioshuhudia juzi mbunge fulani akipewa shahada ya uzamili feki, tokana ujinga wake, akajisifu yeye ni daktarin wakati si kweli, niseme wazi kuwa siyo shabiki wa madaraja na utaratibu wa sasa wa elimu nchini. Mie nakumbuka nilipata daraja la pili sekondari kwenda kidato cha sita. Wale waliokuwa wamepata daraja la kwanza pointi za mwanzo mwanzo walituona sisi kama waliofeli japo wengi tuliwashinda vibaya sana.
Je imekuwaje nchi zilizoendelea zimeachana na mambo ya ushindani wa kukariri badala ya uelewa? Jibu ni rahisi kuwa tunashindanisha ujinga badala ya ujuzi kama jamii na taifa. Tutamalizwa na kujimaliza wenyewe kwa kuendeleza mawazo mgando.
Leo sitaandika mengi. Nitaandika machache ili upate fursa ya kutafakari na kufanya uamuzi wa kuondokana na ukale na ujinga wa sasa ambapo tunaendekeza kukariri badala ya kuelewa na kuelimika. Ndiyo maana unakuta watu wana shahada nyingi lakini wakiingia kwenye utendaji wanaboronga. Nadhani, kama rais unakumbuka kisa cha mzee Abeid Karume aliyejenga majengo ya Michenzani yakawashinda madaktari hata kuyapaka rangi.
Naomba nimalize kwa kukuomba uangalie namna ya kubadili mfumo wetu wa elimu kutoka kwenye kukariri na kwenda kwenye kuwapa sifa zinazotakiwa vijana ili waweze kupambana na maisha. Nadhani mfano toka Kanada unatosha kukufungua macho. Unaweza hata ukafanya utafiti wako mwenyewe kwenye nchi nyingi za magharibi. Mie ninayeandika, nilikuja hapa na stashahada. Nilikwenda kuomba nafasi ya kusoma, wakanipa mtihani wa kupima upeo wangu wa kuelewa na kiingereza nikakubaliwa. Na ninapoandika, niko nafanya utafiti andiko la tasnifu yangu ya shahada ya uzamili ambayo nimeifanya kwa miaka mitatu badala ya minne. Kwa mfumo wetu wangenikatalia kusoma chuo kikuu. Mfano mwingine, niliwahi kuomba kusoma chuo kikuu huria wananikatalia eti kwa vile sina cheti cha kidato cha nne! Ajabu hapa hawakuniuliza upuuzi wa cheti cha sekondari wala nini zaidi ya kuniingiza chuoni na kufanya shahada ya kwanza na pili za miaka minne minne nilizofanya ndani ya miaka mitatu mitatu. Mbali na kutegemea kupata shahada ya uzamivu, ni mwandishi wa vitabu zaidi ya 20 tena ndani ya miaka saba vingi vikiwa vya kiada. Je ni watanzania wangapi wana rekodi kama hii? Kama kuna nilichojifunza hapa, ni kuwa elimu siyo madaraja ya juu bali mfumo mzuri wa elimu.

Chanzo: Raia Mwema kesho.

THE AFTERMATH OF SPEAKER NDUGAI’s RESIGNATION : THE MISGUIDED OPINIONS THAT NEED TO CLARIFIED.

                                         

  Understandably, former  Speaker Job  Ndugai’s sudden   announcement of his voluntarily resignation last week on 6th January 2022,  quickly became  the greatest ‘hot  news’ of the   week;    and the  mass and social  media were awash with  observers’ comments  and  opinions  regarding this matter. Speaker  of  the National  Assembly; Hon Job Ndugai  (November  2015 -January 2022);  suddenly tendered  his  letter  of  resignation  to  the CCM Secretary  General,   the  political  party  that had nominated  him  for  election  to  that high constitutional  position.
    “Constitutional position” simply  means  “a leadership  position, which is  established  by the  country’s Constitution”.  The  Speaker’s  position  is  established  by article  84(1)  of  the Constitution  of  the United  Republic  of Tanzania,  1977. Most    of  the  opinions expressed  stated  that  his resignation was   tendered   under great pressure, that  was  piled  on  him  from  a  variety  of  sources;  particularly  from his  fellow  members  of  Parliament (MPs),  the  persons  who elected  him  to  that  office;   some  of  whom,  including  Hon  Livingstone  Lusinde, and  Hon Msukuma;    even called  special press  conferences separately;  at  which  they  strongly urged him  to “step  down  immediately”.  This  pressure was a result  of his  unprecedented  public  criticism  of President  Samia  Suluhu  Hassan, and her  government;   published  through his  statement posted  on  social media; in which  he  said : “ Is there  any  pride in carrying a begging bowel around? We have resorted to  borrowing  every day.  There will come  a day when  this  country will be  auctioned off to repay  these  huge  debts”.        

        His  remarks  prompted a furore  among  seasoned  economists, producing a barrage of  statements from different  sources, including the  Governor of  the  Bank of  Tanzania  (BOT);  and  the  Minister  of  Finance. In  such  circumstances,  his  resignation  was  indeed   inevitable;   for  two  simple  reasons:-  

 (a)  Had he  attempted to ignore such pressure;  he would obviously have  been  expelled from  that position by the National  Assembly, in  exercise  of the powers granted to it  by the Standing Orders  and  Rules of  the  House.                                       

(b)  His continuation  as  head  of  the  Legislative  Branch of  the Government,  had clearly become untenable  when President Samia  severely censured  him; saying that  Ndugai’s remarks were part of  an  orchestrated  campaign   to  destabilize the government ahead  of  the  2025  general  election when  she  said: “It  is  inconceivable that the head of one of  the  ‘pillars  of  the State’ can stand  up  and  say what  he  said.   It  all has  everything to  do with  the 2025 general  election”. There is a Kiswahili  proverb  which  says: Mwanakuvitafuta, mwana  kuvipata.” Speaker  Ndugai’s   resignation  was    thus inevitable,  and  unavoidable. And,  very commendably, he took the right decision,  at  the  right  time.
The aftermath  of  his resignation.
But there are certain   issues  which  have  arisen  in  the  aftermath of  his  resignation,  which  need  clarification; specifically the  following:-     
 (i)  The  misguided  comments  and  opinions  that   “it  was   the  first  time  in  the  country’s  history  that  the  Speaker  of  the  National  Assembly  has  tendered  his  resignation”,  expressed  in   bold  print  in a front  page  story of DAILY  NEWS   of   Friday,  January 7th, 2022:- Ndugai throws in  towel : first  time in history for the  Speaker to  resign”. In fact,  this was just not true!           
        The first  Speaker to resign, was Speaker  Adam Sapi  Mkwawa;  who voluntarily  resigned  from that  post (on  health grounds) in  April  1994,  due  to his deteriorating  health,  to the  point  that  he could  no longer manage to guide the proceedings of  the House  from  the Speaker’s  Chair; and was thus obliged to  stay away,  leaving to me (the  Deputy Speaker  at the  time) the task  of  presiding  over  the House  proceedings, up  to   April  1994;  when  he  decided to tender his  resignation  from the Speakership.    
(ii)  The other issue, which has been  the  subject  of misinformation,  is the procedure adopted  by    former Speaker Job Ndugai , of addressing his  resignation letter to the CCM Secretary General,  instead of to the Clerk of the National Assembly.
        This  was, indeed, contrary to the  requirements of the  country’s  Constitution;  which  requires,  in  its  article 149 (1)  (c);  that  a  Speaker who resigns “shall send his resignation  letter  to  the  National Assembly (Bunge)”. It is this  inconsequential little mistake, that led Mr. James Mbatia, the Chairman of  NCCR-MAGEUZI,  to assert that Ndugai’s resignation “was invalid; and that his  party was making  arrangements  to challenge the matter in court. There  is basically no  problem with  that  intention  of   going   to  court; because article  26 (2)  of  our  Constitution,  allows any   aggrieved person  “ to  take  legal  steps  to  prevent any  breaches  of   the  Constitution,  or  of  the other  laws  of the  land”.
         However, as any seasoned lawyer will    testify; the legal  system recognizes two types  of  such mistakes: there are those that are described    as “fatal mistakes”, which could  indeed render the relevant  action  invalid.  But there are also the “non-fatal” mistakes, which  can  be cured, in  order to achieve  the  ends  of proper justice.            
        In the instant case, Ndugai’s little mistake  of  sending his resignation  letter  to the  CCM  Secretary General, was quickly cured by  the  said   Secretary  General,  who  promptly   sent  the  same  letter  to  the  Clerk  of  the  National  Assembly;  and  who   acknowledged  its  receipt,    in  a  published    statement  to  the  mass  media.                                                                               

        The  said  letter  will  now  be  read  in  the  House   on  the  day  of  its  first  sitting,   upon  its  resumption   of  business  after  the  current  adjournment.That  is  precisely   what  was  done  in  the  case  of  the  resignation  of the  late  Chief  Adam  Sapi   Mkwawa  in  1994.  Because he  had  been  properly  advised,   he   correctly   addressed  his  resignation  letter  to  the  Clerk  of  the  National  Assembly.   
        There is one item of business that is  regularly  placed  on  the Order Paper of the  Assembly’s first  sitting,  after  every adjournment.  It is titled “Communication from the Speaker”.;   which is normally called immediately after  prayers. Thus,  in Speaker Chief  Adam  Sapi’s  case, upon  the Assembly’s  resumption  of  business on the first day of  its  sittings  after  it  had  been  adjourned in February, 1994; the  “Communication  from  the Speaker” was the reading of  his resignation  letter. Being  the Deputy Speaker  myself, I was  the  person presiding over those proceedings. I therefore invoked the provisions of article 84(2) ( c ) of  the Constitution of the United  Republic, (which  prescribes that no business can be conducted  in  the  National  Assembly when the  Speaker’s  position is vacant). I therefore adjourned  the  House “sine  die” (without  mentioning the  date  of its resumption);  to enable the process for the  election  of a new Speaker to commence. 
        That process was commenced immediately  thereafter. I stood as one of two candidates  who  were nominated by CCM (under the then One  party election rules); and when the election  was  subsequently  held, I emerged the winner. That is  how I ‘graduated’ from Deputy Speaker, to Speaker of the National Assembly.      
        This  authentic  information  hopefully puts  to  rest,   the   media  speculations  that  Ndugai’s  resignation was “the  first  in  the  history  of  our  country”. It was  certainly not the  first;  since  there  already  was the  resignation  of  Speaker  Chief  Adam  Sapi  Mkwawa.
 The issue of the expelled  CHADEMA MPs.
This is the other issue, which  was ‘resurrected’   in  the  aftermath of former Speaker Ndugai’  resignation. I have used the term “resurrected”,  simply because it had  already been raised; when  Speaker  Ndugai presided over  the swearing-n  of  19  HADEMA MPS, who had been expelled  from membership of their party. 

        There is a media outlet, the East Africa  Radio/Television; which interviewed me this time, seeking my opinion on Speaker  Ndugai’s  resignation. That is when my interviewer  “resurrected” the issue of CHADEMA’s expelled  MPs. In my responses, I quoted  the provisions  of  article  71 (1) of the Constitution of the United  Republic; which specifies the events, which, when  any of them occurs, leads to an MP losing his  membership of Parliament.  

        These events are  listed in  article  71 (1);  whose sub- article  (f) provides that: “if  an MP   ceases to belong  to the political party that  sponsored him or  her to contest in the  relevant  parliamentary election”. I told my interviewer, that   this  clear and unambiguous provision was  intended by the constitution makers; that it should apply automatically, upon the relevant political party notifying the Speaker of such action . I even mentioned the many  previous  actions of  that  kind, which have taken by different political  parties at different  times in our country’s history; all of which automatically led to the  loss  of  membership of Parliament by the persons  concerned.  I mentioned the expulsions   of  several  MPs by  TANU, way back in 1969; by a meeting  of  its National Executive Committee  held in  Tanga.                             
         When  the then  clerk  of  the National  Assembly, Pius  Msekwa, was notified by letter  from  TANU’s National   Executive secretary;   that  letter was sufficient evidence  that the  specified  MPs  had  ceased  to be members of  Parliament;  and the then Speaker Adam  Sapi  Mkwawa   accordingly notified  the Electoral Commission  of  the vacancies that had occurred; and the Electoral Commission  dutifully took the  necessary action to fill those vacancies. In  fact,  this  notification   was  (and  still  is),   a  requirement  of  the  National   Elections  law.
        And   even  after  the  return  to the  multiparty  system; political parties continued  to  exercise  their  power in  that  respect.  For  example, I  was  the  Speaker  of  the  National  Assembly when the United  Democratic  Party  (UDP)  expelled  one  of  its  MPs,   Mr.  Danhi    Makanga;  from membership of  that  party.    Upon  receipt  of  the letter   signed  by  its  Secretary  General Kasella-Bantu  duly    informing  the  Speaker  of  that  action; and  in  compliance  with  Election law; I Informed the  Electoral Commission  that   a  vacancy had  occurred in the membership of  the  National  Assembly; and  the Commission   dutifully     took  the  requisite  steps to fill that vacancy. 
         There was  also the interesting case of Mr. Augustine Mrema, at that time MP for Temeke; who  decided  to resign from NCCR-MAGEUZI,  in  order to  join the Tanzania Labour Party (TLP). By that seemingly simple   action, Mrema had ceased to belong to the party that  had sponsored his election to Parliament. He therefore lost his  membership of Parliament.                            
        He did not write a letter to the Speaker,  probably in the  forlorn hope and  false expectation that  in  the  absence of his  letter,  the  Speaker  will  take  no  action!   But  I  took  his  own  public  announcement  that  he  had  so  resigned  and  joined  another  party,  as  sufficient  evidence  of  his  having  disqualified  himself  from  membership  of  Parliament   I  therefore informed  the  Electoral  Commission,  as  required  by  law;    that  a vacancy  had  occurred  in  the  membership  of  the  National  Assembly.,  
        Hence, it was with that rich background  knowledge  in my mind,  that I confidently   responded  to my interviewer in the way I did,   when  he resurrected the matter of the  expelled  CHADEMA  MPs. having been sworn  into  office as  members of Parliament despite  their expulsion there from. I simply  maintained the position  which  I  have  reiterated  above. In other words,  I was,  practically,  saying  nothing  new; I just  maintained my position  regarding  the  unconstitutionality of this  matter.  Perhaps  CHADEMA will,  instead of just   keeping  quiet  about  it, will one  day take  the  matter  to  court.; and the   holding of the  court  will  hopefully  put  this  matter to a peaceful rest.
piomsekwa@gmail.com /0754767576

The Press, bias and elections

                   

                   By Makau Mutua
Professor at SUNY Buffalo Law School and Chair of the KHRC.
American Vice-President Spiro Agnew – who left office in ignominy for felony tax evasion in 1973 – once called the Press the “nattering nabobs of negativism”.
He added salt to the wound by lambasting journalists as “hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history”.
        The memorable lines were the handiwork of then White House speechwriter William Safire, who became an iconic New York Times columnist.
``Hyperbole aside, VP Agnew expressed the disgust of many towards the Fourth Estate. It’s the work of the press to annoy, especially those in power. It should be equally annoying to those seeking the presidency. Its work should be to inform the public, dig for political dirt, and expose the underbelly of our would-be rulers.
        The Press is, of course, composed of many parts. But two of the most important stations in the business are the commentariat – like myself – and reporters.
Recorders of history
The twain aren’t the same. Reporters are supposed to tell the reader what happens, where, why and whodunit. They are instant recorders of history as it happened. That’s why scholars will often rely on news reporting as evidence and record of events.
        The reporter isn’t supposed to embellish, twist or give a cooked personal interpretation of events. The reporter conveys what she sees, senses, smells, feels and breathes. But she’s not a doormat. She conveys whys and wherefores. The columnist is a completely different animal, the sort that bites you in the rear.
A good columnist is public enemy number one to all and sundry. She takes a machete to what happened, or may happen, and gives it a twirl. She has a large magnifying glass – bifocals, if you will – to enable her to see all the warts. If her sight shows that which is unflattering, you bet she’ll write about it.
        In other words, the columnist doesn’t report safe landings, or crashes, of planes. Nyet – she rakes over the crash site and finds who to blame, and then roasts them royally. Her lenses are tinted with bias, which is simply another word for personal reflection, or opinion. It’s in the commentariat where society looks itself in the mirror and appreciates its ugliness.
That’s why a “free press” – independently owned press or private corporate media – is indispensable to a democracy. Its credibility lies in the level of trust – believability – by the public of its reporters and reporting. Of course, reporters are biased too, but in a different way. They are biased because of the stories they choose to cover, and which the editors decide to run.
But the bias is also in how those stories are written, on what page they are carried, and their headlines. Most importantly, of course, is who is hired as a reporter. How inclusive is the pool of reporters and the commentariat? Are they all Akamba, or male, for example? These choices decide how the paper educates and informs the public.
Spit out all the refuse
Which brings me to how the Press should cover presidential candidates. Off the bat, the Press should never be the funnel for “garbage in, garbage out”.
In other words, the Press isn’t there to simply swallow and spit out all the refuse that issues out of a candidate’s mouth. The Press needs to be discerning and not repeat, for one example, obvious lies or falsehoods. I think every media should have a fact-checker who calls out the lies.
These must be prominently published. Reporters shouldn’t simply spectate and sit there drooling when candidates are denialists of facts. Spin is one thing, but bald-faced denialism quite another. Reporters need to build narratives of candidates through good and well-researched reporting.
        I’ve written that it’s OK – and publicly responsible policy – for media houses to endorse candidates. Every media house has an ideological stripe. Some are conservative while others are liberal, or progressive. A number are religious. Let a thousand flowers bloom. But this means that different outlets will push their own ideological, moral, and political agendas. No media house is truly neutral.
At the very least, most media houses aren’t neutral between democracy and dictatorship, or fascism – unless they are in the gulags of authoritarian states. I believe any media house should be free to endorse candidates that it believes advance its vision of society. The media, though corporate, is a “citizen” with a right to its views.
Dissect and expose
Finally, a word on the commentariat and presidential candidates. No part of the paper is better placed to dissect and expose candidates than opinion writers.
I’ve heard some knuckleheads complain that this, or that, columnist is “attacking” a certain candidate. That’s baloney. It would be irresponsible for a columnist not to turn candidates upside down and see what contraband falls out of their pockets.
I’ve seen other critics complain that a columnist should be equally critical of all candidates. Again, that’s hogwash. It’s not the burden of a columnist to walk around with a balancing scale. Don’t read a columnist if she aggrieves you. Write a counter response.
Makau Mutua is SUNY Distinguished Professor and Margaret W. Wong Professor at Buffalo Law School. He’s Chair of KHRC. @makaumutua.

Source: Sunday Nation yesterday.

Barua ya Wazi kwa CCM:Msiwaendekeze Kijani wapingao ndani

Japo mimi si mwanachama wa chama chochote, bado ninavitazama vyama vyote kwa jicho sawa hasa ikizingatiwa kuwa ndivyo wenye dhamana ya kuongoza taifa letu pale chochote kinapopewa ridhaa na watanzania. Leo nawasiliana na CCM kwa mara ya kwanza. Sijawahi kuwa na ushabiki wa kuviandikia vyama au vikundi vya watu. Ila nikiangalia mambo yafuatayo, najikuta nikikiandikia chama tena tawala:
        Kwanza, CCM ni chama tawala ambacho kwa njia moja au nyingine kinanihusu kama mtanzania yeyote. Kwani, uwepo madarakani unagusa maslahi mapana ya taifa ukiachia ya chama. Hivyo, CCM si chama tu bali chama tawala kilichopewa madaraka na watanzania wengi kikaunda serikali na kukamata dola kwa niaba yao.
        Pili, nashangaa kunani watu wazima kuvuana nguo hadharani! Je ni kwa sababu gani na faida ya nani na kwanini? Je kuna bifu baina ya wakubwa wa chama au kuna kitu kimepungua au kinakwenda ndivyo sivyo? Kwa wanaojua namna CCM mnavyofanya mambo yenu kwa mshikamano wa pamoja, inashangaza sana. Pia, hii ni hatari kwa chama ukiachia mbali aibu na hatari.
        Tatu, naangalia hata kile kinachowagombanisha ambacho kiko wazi hasa mkirejea mipango na sera zenu kwa makini. Je, kama alivyosema Mheshimiwa Rais, hiki kinachowakuta ndiyo siasa za kuelekea mwaka 2025? Je ili iweje na kwanini? Haraka ya nini? Je huu ndiyo utaratibu wenu?
        Nne, najaribu kuangalia madhara yanayoweza kutokana na mnyukano wenu kama chama tawala hasa linapokuja suala la uendeshaji wa taifa letu hasa kiuchumi. Mheshimiwa Rais–––ambaye ndiye mkuu wa mhimili wa utawala na mwenye mamlaka makubwa kuliko wengine na Mwenyekiti wa CCM–––hivi karibuni aliingia kwenye mtiafuano na mkuu wa mhimili wa Bunge Mheshimiwa Job Ndugai aliyetahadharisha watanzania na dunia kuwa nchi itapigwa mnada tokana na kukopa.              Wakati Ndugai akipinga kukopa, Mheshimwa Rais anasema Tanzania itakopa kwa vile haikopi kwenda kufuja bali kuwekeza kwenye maendeleo tena kwa mikopo isiyo na riba. Nani anapenda nchi yake iuzwe? Je Ndugai alipitiwa au kuna kitu nyuma ya pazia kuelekea 2025? Je Ndugai ni wa kupuuza, kuadhibu au kusikiliza? Je inawezekana Ndugui akasikilizwa na kueleweka akiwa ndani ya chama kile kile anachopingana na serikali yake? Je hapa anangoja nini kufanya maamuzi magumu japo kulinda heshima yake na kuonyesha kuwa alimaanisha alichosema?
        Tano, nikiangalia namna Ndugai alivyo’omba’ kinachoitwa msamaha bila kukanusha madai yake ya kupinga kukopakopa na kupiga nchi mnada, naona kama kuna zaidi ya kile waingereza huita more than meets the eye. Je sasa nini mfanye? Nadhani kama chama kikongwe na tawala, fanyeni maamuzi magumu tena haraka ili kulinda heshima yenu. Na hapa niseme wazi kuwa msimchukulie Ndugai hatua peke yake bali na wengine wote wanaokinzana na mipango na sera zenu. Wafukuzeni uanachama baada ya kuwaita wajitete na kusikiliza mashiko ya hoja na madai yao. Mfano, Ndugai, kwa kukinzana na Mwenyekiti wa chama chake, amepoteza udhu wa kukiwakilisha chama chake kwenye mhimili husika kama kilivyoaminiwa na wapiga kura wa Tanzania.              Hivyo, ningekuwa mimi, ningeishapeleka barua kwa katibu wa Bunge kuanzisha mchakato wa kumtafuta wa kufanya kazi ya uspika. Ndugai akifanya hivi, hatajisaidia yeye kubaki na heshima yake tu bali hata chama na mhimili wa Bunge. Hata huu mchezo unaoendelea wa kumshambulia Ndugai hauna afya wala tija kwa chama. Bila kufanya maamuzi magumu, mtaendelea kushambuliana na kuvuana nguo hadharani kwa hasara na hatari yenu baadaye. Lazima muonyesha uongozi hapa. 
        Sita, suala la Ndugai ni fursa kwa CCM kuwashuhgulikia wote wanaopayukapayuka huku wakiendelea kuwa ndani ya chama au kuwa wabunge chini ya tiketi ya chama. Mfano, Josephat Gwajima (Kawe), Jerru Silaa (Ukonga) na Humphrey Polepole (Kuteuliwa) ambao wamekuwa wakionyesha wazi kukinzana na mipango, misimamo na sera za chama hasa kuhusiana na namna ya kupambana na Uviko-19. Kama watanzania wengine, wote wanaotajwa hapo juu, wana uhuru wa kutoa maoni yao lakini hawana haki ya kupinga mipango, misimamo na sera za chama chao kinachoongoza nchi wakabaki na uhalali wa kuendelea kuwa ndani ya chama wanachokipinga. Wanapaswa wajiondoe au kuondolewa ili waendelee kuhubiri na kutetea kile wanachokiamini kama kweli wana kiamini na kina mashiko kwao na wengine.
        Saba, najikumbusha historia ya matukio kama haya ndani ya CCM. Hebu jikumbushe kilichotuma Waziri Mkuu wa zamani mzee John Malecela kujiuzulu. Pale aliposhindwa kutetea sera ya CCM ya Muungano mbali na kumshauri vibaya Mheshimiwa Rais kuhusiana na kujiunga na Jumuia ya Nchi za Kiislam (OIC), aliambiwa arejeshe kadi au aachie ngazi na Hayati Baba wa Taifa, Mwl Julius Nyerere na akaachia ngazi kulinda heshima yake na ya chama jambo wanalopaswa kufanya wahusika hapo juu. Wakiendelea kutaka kula huku na kule, wafukuzeni uanachama nyadhifa zao zitayeyuka zenyewe.
        Tumalizie. Ili kutoa onyo kwa wengine wanaotaka kula huku n akule, watimueni haraka sana ili wanaojiandaa kuthubutu washike adabu mbali na kujenga utamaduni wa watu kuwajibika kwa matamshi na misimamo yao na kile wanachoamini. Hakuna awezaye kutumikia mabwana wawili kwa wakati mmoja. Pia, tumshauri Mwenyekiti akunjue makucha yake na kuparura ili wale wanaotaka kumhujumu washike adabu. Kama alivyoahidi kufanya mabadiliko ya baraza la mawaziri ili kuwaweka huru wanaohangaika na 2025, awaruhusu pia wanachama wanaoanza kuhangaishwa na 2025. Kwani –––tukitafsiri maneno ya kimombo–––huwezi kuoka mkate wako na ukaula mwenyewe. Pia, mshika mbili lazima moja imponyoke atake asitake. Isitoshe, hawa ni watu wazima wenye akili na maamuzi ya kiutu uzima wanaopaswa kufanya maamuzi magumu na ya kiutu uzima. Ila kama watashindwa kufanya hivyo, si vibaya chama kikawasaidia kufanya maamuzi haya tena mapema hata kabla ya 2025.

Chanzo: Raia Mwema kesho.

RIP MICROPHONE NDOOGUY

 Dear Dishonourable Jobless NdooGuy, I am so convoluted to note here though a wee bit happily. It is about your political demise.  If you didn't see it coming, what a false. Hither we are. It unceremoniously over now bro. Pack and jump into the ocean of oblivion. Ama kweli ivumayo haidumu. As come as go, the sage has it. As you hit the road, please take all of your burdens including those from CHADEMA.  Jobless Ndooguy is now history visa-vis ulaji wa Bunge. I am waiting to see the fate of his Covid-19 MPs. I can't say much. RIP Jobless NdooGuy. For your ulaji is long gone and the pomp you used to heartily enjoy and wage over others is now long gone. For more info, CLICK HERE PLEASE.

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL OUR ESTEEMED READERS.

The  new  year  2022; which, as is customary for  my  family, found us  inside our Nansio  Parish   Catholic  Church, celebrating Holy  Mass along  with  many other worshippers; in grateful thanksgiving to the Almighty  God for  all he  had  done  for  us during  the whole of the  year   that was  coming  to  its  end  in the  middle of  that night,  to  be  followed  by a grand display  of  glittering fireworks, which I had carefully  arranged.                                

     Thus, at the  stroke of midnight,  the  large   audience,  which by  now included many  other   people who  had  gathered  outside  the Church,  waiting  to witness  this   rare  fireworks  event, were all treated to this grand   display, which    brightened  the skies  of  the  Paris  Church,  and  far  beyond.   It   was  highly  appreciated   by   all  those   who  witnessed  it;  and   has  now    become  the   ‘story  of  the  year’  here in Ukerewe.
My   ‘new   year  resolution’.
Previously,  on  28th  December  2021,  I  had   received  what I will refer to as ‘my   new  year  gift’, in the form  of  a very encouraging  message  from  one of my absolutely dedicated  readers,  which  read as  follows:- “Hongera  kwa  kuwa  mwandishi  mzuri,  na mfano kwa  Vijana. Mimi  ni  msomaji  makini wa  makala zako,    zinazochaishwa katika kile kipengele cha  Current  Affairs, katika  gazeti la Daily News. Kwa hakika,  zinanifundisha na kunipatia maarifa mengi. Mimi   mwenyewe  naamini  kwamba ili niwe  kiongozi  mzuri  na  mzalendo, ni lazima  nijifunze  kutoka  kwa  watu  kama  wewe, mliolitumikia  Taifa  letu  kwa  weledi na kutoa  mchango  mkubwa, hadi  kufikia hapa tulipo leo. Nakutakia sikukuu  njema ya mwaka mpya, na Baraka  tele za Mwenyezi  Mungu  kwa familia yako”. 
     This kind  message greatly  encouraged  me;  and  actually confirmed my resolve to continue  writing  these weekly articles during  the  coming  year. So help me God.  
The  golden  Jubilee  of  independence.  
Lest we forget, I should  remind our  readers, of  the fact that we celebrated our golden jubilee of  independence in December  of  the  year  that  has  just  ended. It was, therefore,  a historically  significant year for our great nation, in respect  of  which,  the following humorous cartoon  appeared in  one  of  the  leading   Kiswahili newspapers: “Taifa  letu   ndiyo kwanza limefikia  miaka  60.   Je, hawa wazee wetu wa  miaka  61 na kuendelea,   wametoka   wapi” ?                                       

         I  happen to be one of  these “culprits”  who,  according to that cartoon, must explain our origins! And,  yes  indeed, it is true that people like me,  and    all  those  who were born before  the  country’s  independence,  have  a  duty  to  tell  the  story  of  where   we  came  from,  or   the  history  of  our  country  before  independence;  which  I  will  attempt to do in the paragraphs  that  follow  below.
 The pre-independence ‘sad’ story of colonial  domination.
The  country  that celebrated its 60 years   golden  60- years jubilee last  December, originates from a “colonial  territory”,  previously known as “Tanganyika  Trust  Territory”. The  story starts  from November 15th,  1884;  when the  notorious  Berlin  Conference of European  Powers  started   in  Berlin,  the then government capital  of  Germany; whose  agenda  was to  discuss the   partitioning  Africa among  themselves;  which     gave the territory  of  Tanganyika to the Germans, who quickly came to the country  and  established  their first settlement at Bagamoyo where, on  February 27th 1885, the Germans formally  declared  that  Tanganyika was their  colony,  and    hoisted  their colonial flag in Tanganyika  for  the  first  time; and  established their  government  headquarters. It  is  from  there  that they made   rapid   inroads  into other parts of  the country,  an  operation  which  was managed by one  Karl  Peters, who  tricked many  native rulers   into  signing  false ‘ Agreements of “friendship” with  the  Germans.
        The  German  colonizers  are  reported  to  have  been   very  cruel  to  the  natives   in  the  management  of  their     administration.  Hence,  in  many  cases,    they   met  with  stiff  resistance  from  the  native  rulers, specifically  from  the   Wanyamwezi  of  Tabora;  where  the  gallant   Chief  Isike  Mkasiwa  committed  suicide,   rather  than  surrender  to  the  Germans; and from  the  Wahehe  of  Iringa; who bravely fought   the  “maji   maji”  war  against  the  Germans,   and,   eventually on  June 19th, 1897,  Chief   Sigonyangili  Mkwawa  of  the   Wahehe  committed  suicide,  rather  than  surrender  to  the  Germans.  
   Brutal hangings performed in public.
This  was  another  brutality, which  was  committed  by the German colonial  rulers  in  Tanganyika  Territory. For example, in February 1906, the Wangoni tribal  leaders were hanged  at  Songea by the Germans, for the crime of their  participation in the  Maji maji war. Members of  the  public were forced  to witness these cruel  acts.  But  prior  to  that  on  March 2nd, 1900;  nine  tribal  leaders  of  the Wachaga in Kilimanjaro were  also  publicly hanged at Moshi. The victims  included Mangi Mollelia  of  Kibosho, Mangi Ngalami  and  Meli  of  Moshi; who were  accused  of  conspiring “ to  frustrate the German  rule” in  Kilimanjaro.

The  German  rulers  positive  side.
But there is also a positive  aspect  of  German   colonial  rule  in Tanganyika  which  must  be  acknowledged;  which  is  the  construction  of  railway  lines:  (a)  from Dar es Salaam – Tanga -  Moshi; which  was  inaugurated in 1911 when   the    charcoal-powered steam  locomotive coughed  its  maiden  journey  from Dar es  Salaam, amidst  glaring  publicity attended  not only by the  local  people, but also by  invited guests  from

the  colonial  Authorities  in  Europe; and  (b)  the  Central  railway line from   Dar es  Salaam  to  Tabora and Kigoma, which was completed in  1914.                                                   

The  termination of German colonial rule: the   first  world  war.
This war lasted from 1914 until  1918. Germany’s initial successes led to the occupation of nearly the whole of Europe by the German forces, under Hitler’s leadership. Although the war was fought mainly in Europe, but the Germans were also fought in their various colonies; Including Tanganyika, where, on August 29th, 1915;  the  British  forces attacked and captured the  German fort at Iringa.  And elsewhere in  Tanganyika, bloody battles took  place in October 1917,  between the British and  the German forces  at  Mahiwa,  Lindi.                                                                    And on September 1918,  the German forces  entered Songea from  Mozambique, in a vain  bid  to salvage what had remained of the ‘German  empire’ in colonial Tanganyika. But the war  eventually ended on November 11th, 1918; with  the defeat and surrender of the German forces to  the  Allied forces in Europe. 

        And  that  was  when,  as  a  severe  punishment  to  the  defeated  Germany,  all  its  colonies were  taken  away,  and  redistributed  among the winning  European  countries  by  the  League  of  European Nations.  They  were    to  be  administered  not  as  colonies,  but  as  ‘mandated  territorie’ under  the  direct  supervision  of  the  League  of  Nations. 
     Under this  arrangement, Tanganyika Territory was handed over to the  British; who quickly  established  their  Administration of  the  country  by  appointing the first  British colonial  Governor  to  Tanganyika,  H.A  Byatt,  on 22nd  July, 1920..
British Administration in  Tanganyika,1920 - 1961.
The  fact that Tanganyika was a “mandated  Territory” administered  by the  British under  the  supervision  of  the League of Nations  (which  later  became known  as  the United  Nations  Organization  (UNO),  apparently had a  major  influence  on  nature  of  the  development  policies  which  were  adopted  by  the British  Administering  Authorities.       

        For  example,  they  did  not  acquire   large  areas  of  fertile  from the  natives  land   and  turned  it  into  exclusive  restricted   European   settlements;  as  happened  in  neighbouring    Kenya   in  relation  to  the  “white  Highlands”  which  were   forcibly   taken  from  the  Kikuyu  natives.                                                                               Generally,  the British Administration in  Tanganyika  seemed   to   have   adopted peripheral  interest  in  matters  of  the  country’s   social  and   economic  development.  
The establishment of a Legislature for  Tanganyika.
 On  19th  March,  1926,  the  British  Parliament   passed  a  law    for  the  establishment  of   a  Legislative  Council  (LEGCO) in Tanganyika.  The  Legislative  Council subsequently held  its  first  session on 7th  December,  1926; with all its  members nominated by  the Governor.

        The first African members to enter   that  Legislative Council, were nominated in 1945,  when,  on November 24th, 1945, the Governor nominated Chief Abdieli Shangali, and Chief Kidaha  Makwaia,  to be members  thereof.   
        And  later,  on  May  12th,  1954;  Mwalimu  Nyerere  was  also  nominated  to  be  a  member  of  this  Legislative  Council,    but  he  resigned  only  six  months  later,  on  the  principle   that    he  had  realized  that   his  membership  was   not  helping   to  promote   the  people’s  aspirations,   as  he  had  hoped    and  expected   when  he  accepted  that  nomination. “ kila  nilichokipendekeza,  kimekuwa kinakataliwa”  lamented   Mwalimu  Nyerere.  “Kwa  hiyo  najisikia  kuwa   ninawadanganya  Watanganyika  kama  nitaendelea  kuwa  mjumbe  wa  Baraza  hilo,  nikifurahia  posho  zake,  na  hivyo  kutoa  muonnekano  wa  udannganyifu,   kwamba  kuna  kazi  ya  maana  ninayoifanya  huko;                         wakati  kumbe  sina  manufaa  yoyote  yenye  kuleta  faida  kwa  nchi  yangu!”  he   said.
Mwalimu   Nyerere’s  trips  to  the  United   Nation’s  Trusteeship   Council.
  The   establishment of  the Tanganyika  African  National  Union (TANU) on  7th  July,  1954;  was  the  beginning of the  political  struggle  for  the  country’s  independence   from  colonial  rule. At  TANU’s    inaugural  meeting   on  7th  July,  1954;   Mwalimu  Nyerere   was    elected    President  of   that  party;    and   On  March  7th,  1955;    Mwalimu   Nyerere  addressed  the  United  Nation’s  Trusteeship  Council  in   New  York,  where  he  made  a  moving  plea  for  Tanganyika’s  early  independence .            

        His  seemingly  successful   political  activities   alarmed  the  Administration  Authorities,  who  then  conspired  with  his  Missionary  employers  at  St  Francis   College   Pugu,  who  gave  him  the  difficult  choice  of  either  giving  up   his  political  activities  and  just  concentrate  on  his  teaching  job ;   or   resign  from   this    lucrative  teaching   and  concentrate  on  the   risky  career   of  politics.                                 After  serious  contemplation  and  deep  meditation,   Mwalimu   Nyerere,  in  a  moving  resignation  letter  addressed  to  the  School   Headmaster  written  on  22nd  March,  1955;   Mwalimu    Nyerere    chose  to  sacrifice    his   lucrative   teaching  job  at  that  School,  in  order  to  offer  his  full  time  services  to the struggle  for  the  country’s  liberation  and shame of  being  governed   by  foreigners. “I am sad about the  adverse economic consequences of this decision to my young family,  but  principles are principles. I must  quit”  said  Mwalimu  Nyerere in his resignation  letter.                            

    And he  later again went to New  York,    to  address the United Nation’s  Trusteeship  Council  for the second time , on  20th  December,  1956;  when he stressed  Tanganyika’s continued quest  for  early  independence.    
The  indictment  of  Mwalimu  Nyerere.
On  July  9th,  1958,  Mwalimu  Nyerere  appeared  in court  in  Dare  Salaam,  to answer alleged   ‘libei    charges’ against two colonial  District  Commissioners,  of Musoma  and Geita  respectively.  At  the  end  of  the  trial  on  August  12th,  1958,  he    was  found  “guilty”,  and  sentenced to paying a  fine of Tshs  3000;   or  six months  imprisonment  in  default. Nyerere  paid  the  fine,    and  thus  escaped   being  a  “prison  graduate”. 
Tanganyika’s   first  general  election.
 Tanganyika  held  two separate general elections; in  September 1958,  and again in  September  1960;  in both of which,  TANU won all  the   Legislative Council seats that had been  established. The 1960 general election is what  ushered  in  Tanganyika’s  independence on 9th  December, 1961; thanks to the personal sacrifices  made by our  principled  leader, the late Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere. 

        That then is the authentic story that answers  the  question  that  was  posed in the humorous  cartoon referred to  above,  namely “Taifa letu  ndiyo kwanza limefikia miaka  60;  je,  hao wazee wetu wa miaka 61 na kuendelea, walitoka wapi? Basi huko  ndiko wazee wenu tulikotoka! “Kuishi kwingi, kuona mengi” ( Kiswahli  proverb).
piomsekwa@gmail.com /0754767576.

Source: Daily News tomorrow.