THE APPARENT FEAR OF A RENAISSANCE OF THE TRIBAL CHIEFS’ POWERS : CORRECTING A MISCONCEPTION.

A seemingly   serious misconception appears to have   has arisen,  relating  to   the  apparent  fear  that   that    we  may  be  witnessing  a  renaissance  of   the  tribal  Chiefs’   ‘powers  and  influence’  in  matters  concerning  the  country’s  governance,  (which  were  abolished   by  the  late  President  Nyerere).  This   is the   question that appears to   dominate   conversation between some  observers  of  the  current   political  scene.   I have used  the  word  “misconception”  to  mean  “a  belief,  or  idea,  that  is  not  based  on  correct  information” .                                                         

Such misconception actually started  circulating   from  the  time  when  President  Samia  Suluhu  Hassan  attended  a  cultural   festival  at  Bujora,  Magu;  which  had  been  organized,  and  presided  over,   by  “Umoja  wa  Machifu  Tanzania”,  on  8th   September,  2021;  at  which  the  President  was  installed  as  “HANGAYA”, which  means  ‘Chief  of  all  chiefs’. But  more  recently,   this  fear  was  re-ignited  by  the  remarks  made  by  the  Fourth- phase  President  of  the  United  Republic,  Hon.   Jakaya   Kikwete   on  8th  June,  2022;  when  he  was  addressing   the  13th  “Kongamano  la   Kigoda  cha  Mwalimu  Nyerere”   at  the  University  of  Dar es  Salaam;  at  which  he  was  quoted    as  having  said  the  following :-“siku  hizi  nasikia  kuna  mikutano  ya  machifu,  sijui  wanaitoa  wapi.    Sijui  akina  Mangi  Mkuu  watarudi  tena? .  .  .  .  Alisema  anachojua  yeye  ni  kwamba  suala  la  uchifu  lilishakwisha  hapa  nchini,  na   vile  vile   kwamba   hajui  hata  wakikutana  wanakwenda  kujadili   kitu  gani.  Huku  akieleza  kwamba   yeye  hatamani   kuona  watu  wanarudi  nyuma  na  kuanza  kufikiria  masuala  ya  ukabila”.   

Very soon thereafter, I  received  the  following  message  from  a  close  friend  and  colleague: “Mwalimu  wangu,   unaona  maneno  haya ?  Kwanini  tunautaka  Uchifu?. This was manifest evidence, that the fears regarding this renaissance, have  been re-ignited. But,  actually, my  above mentioned   friend  was  not  the  only  person  who  raised  this  fear;  for  there  were  many  others  who  raised  the  same fear  in  direct  conversation  with  me,  including  veteran journalist   Salvatory Rweyemamu;  who had  visited  me  for  discussions on a totally   different  assignment.               

The Bujora festival  event.
As already stated above,  the  ‘Bujora  festival’,   was  the  event  the  initially  ignited  this  misconception.  I was  among  the  “elders”  who  were  invited,  and  was  given  the  special  privilege  of  being  allocated  a  seat   in  President   Samia’s reserved  “Royal  Box”,  or  “Meza  Kuu”.  Soon  after  the  proceedings  of  the  President’s  installation  ceremony   had  been  concluded; one  of the  “elders”  who  had  been  invited, and  was  present  at  there,    who  had  also  been  a   Minister  in  the  government  of  former  President  Jakaya  Kikwete;  came  and    asked  me   whether  this  was  not  a  renaissance  of  the  tribal  Chiefs’  former  powrs  and   influence  in  the  management  of  the  country’s  affairs  which,  for  the  purpose  of  consolidating  national  unity,  had  effectively  been  terminated  by  the  respected    father  of  the  nation,  Mwalimu  Julius  Nyerere?  (He was referring  to  the  action  taken  at  the  beginning  of  1963,  of  terminating  the  active  role  which  had  been  granted  to  the  Chiefs  through  the    colonial  “Chiefs’  Ordinance”  which   had  been    repealed  by  a  law  enacted  by  the  Parliament  of  Tanganyika  in  March  1963. That is  when  I  first  noticed   this  serious    misconception; that  was  later  buttressed  by  former  President  Jakaya  Kikwete’s  remarks  quoted  above.

It is a  total misconception,  simply  because   it  is ,  unfortunately,    based  on  the   lack   of   a  proper  understanding  of  the  actual  contents  of  that  legislation;  and,  with  due  respect  to  all  those  who  are  so  worried,  I  will  presently   attempt  to  correct  the  misconception.  And   that   is, in fact,  the  principal  purpose  of  this  presentation;   namely,  an  attempt  to  correct  that  misconception   by  presenting  the  facts  regarding  the  real  objective  of  that  particular  legislation. I am   unaware   of the meetings  being  held  by  Chiefs,  a  matter  which  was  referred  to  by  retired  President  Kikwete,   as  quoted  above.  All   I know, is that  at  the  Bujora  festival  which  is   described   above;  President  Samia   did,  in her speech,  direct    the  Chiefs  to  hold   such  festivities  annually,  and  rotate  them  around  all  the  Regions  of  Mainland  Tanzania.  These cannot be  properly  described  as  “meetings”;  that  are normally   held  for  the  purpose  of  making  decisions  on  specified  the  matters;   which  is  not  the  case   at  such  festivals.   
Correcting the misconception.
That misconception can  best  be  corrected  by  exposing  the  objectives   of  that  legislation.   (in legal parlance, every  colonial  legislation  is  cited as  “Ordinance’;  while  every  post-independence  legislation  is  cited  as  “an  Act  of  Parliament”.  This  is  why  the  repealed  colonial  legislation  is  referred to  as  “the  African  Chiefs  Ordinance”;  while   the repealing  legislation,   is  referred  to  the  “African  Chiefs  Ordinance (Repeal)  Act,  1963”). What  that  Act  actually  did,  was  to  repeal   the colonial  Ordinance,  an  action  which   in  the  words  of  that  legislation,  “  terminated   the   powers  and  privileges’ that   had  been  granted  to  the  Chiefs  by  the  repealed  law.  And   these   are   spelled out   in  section  (2 )  thereof,  as   follows:- “Whereby,  under  any  written  law,  it  is  provided  that  any  Chief,  by  virtue  of  his  office  as  such,  was  or  was  appointed to  be,   a  member  of  any  Council, Assembly,  Board,  or  other  Body”. What  this  provision   meant,  was  that  the  Chiefs  ceased  to  exercise  their  Administrative  powers  as  members (and  Chairpersons)  of  their  Native  Authority   District  Councils;  as  well  as  their  judicial  powers  as  magistrates  of  their  “Native  Courts”.  
        However,  in  order  to  save  those  Chiefs  who  were  at  that  time   members  of  the  National  Assembly,  like  Chief  Abdallah  Fundikira  (who  was  Minister  of  Justice)   and  Chief  Adam  Sapi  Mkwawa (who  was  the  Speaker  of  the  national  Assembly)   and  Chief  Erasto  Mwana  Mang’enya  (who  was  Junior  Minister  in  the  Ministry  of   Communications,  Power  &  Works);  a   provision  was  included  in  that  section,  which  empowered  the  Minister  for  the  time  being  responsible  for  Local  government ,   by  Order published  in  the  Official  Gazette,    “to  declare  that  such  person  shall  not,  by  reason  only  of  the  repeal  of  that  Ordinance   cease  to  be  a  member  of  such  Council,  Assembly  or  other  Body;   but   shall  remain  a  member  of  that  Body;  as  if  the  Ordinance  repealed  is  still  in  operation”. This is what enabled these Chiefs    to  remain  in  Parliament,  and  to  retain  their  respective  positions  therein.          

    In this connection, there are  two  points  which  should  be  specially  noted.  The first is   that the  institution  of  chiefs  itself,   was  not  abolished;  and  the  second  is  that  because  this  matter  was  effected    through   a  legal  process;  it  cannot  be  undone  in  any  other  way,  without  going  through a  similar  legal  process.
The  institution   of  Chiefs  was  not  abolished.
The   action   of saving  the  above  named  Chiefs  from  ceasing  to  be  members  of  the  National  Assembly  alone,   is  sufficient  evidence  that   this  legislation  was  not   intended  to  abolish  the  institution  of  Chiefs.   That  is  the   basic  fact   that  should  be    noted.                                                                                                

That  is  precisely  why   the  Chiefs  mentioned  above   continued  to  be  recognized  by  their    name  of    ‘Chief’;   like  Chief  Fundikira,  Chief  Adam  Sapi,   etc. In the  particular   case  of  Ukerewe,  my  home  District,   Chief  Lukumbuzya  was   appointed   to  serve  in  the Diplomatic  Service,  first  as   Tanzania  High  Commissioner  to  India;  and  was  subsequently  transferred  to  Canada.  And  when  he died  in  September  1981,  the  “Royal  Drum”  was,  according  to  custom  and  tradition,   ceremonially  handed  over  to  his  eldest  son,  Viane  Michael  Lukumbuzya   Mwinamila.

    The   Island  of  Ukara  had  its  own  Chief  Mataba,  a  proud   personality   who  was  acutely  aware  of  the  vulnerability   of  his geographically tiny  kingdom;  and   the  danger   of  its   being  “swallowed”    by   the  larger  Ukerewe  empire,   which  extended  far  beyond  the  boundaries  of  this  Island.   He  therefore  constantly  warned  this  potential  enemy  through   catchy sayings  signifying  his  equality  with  him,  particularly   his  famous “omutaho  gutaitaya  mu  gundi“ (a  gourd  cannot  draw  water  from  another  gourd), which  he was   the  sole  originator,  or  inventor.
Legislated  matter  can  only  be  undone  through  another  legislative   process
An old  dictum  says   that   “what  Parliament  does,  cannot   be  undone by any other  Authority” (except  by  the  courts  of  competent  jurisdiction in  specified  circumstances).   Since the provisions of the “Chiefs Ordinance  (Repeal)  Act  were  enacted  by  Parliament; it cannot be  changed  by  any  other  Authority.  Any proposals for change, must be   brought back to Parliament for  consideration  and  decision. Since no such proposals have been brought to Parliament;  there  is  no  reason  to  believe,  that   a  ‘renaissance of  the Chiefs  powers  and  influence’ is  in  the  offing. 
President Nyerere and the Chiefs
A little background to the matter of the relationship between President Nyerere and the Chiefs in Tanganyika would, I presume, be of interest to our readers; as it might help to dispel any misguided notion that ‘Mwalimu Nyerere might have harboured a personal dislike for the Chiefs, which perhaps motivated him to enact the said legislation’. I confidently submit, that this was certainly not the case at all.                                              

In fact, except  in  respect  of   one  or  two  ‘traitor’  Chiefs,   who  sided  with  the  colonial  Administration  in  obstructing  the  country’s   progress  to  independence; Mwalimu  Nyerere  was  fully  appreciative  of  the  positive  role  that  was  played  by  the  vast  majority  of  the  Chiefs   in  the  struggle  for  independence. This  is  evidenced  by  his  own  statement  in  the  colonial   Legislative  Council  on  19th  March,  1959;   in  which  he  made  reference  to  this  positive  role   in  the  following  words:- “We  have  one  strong  nationalist  Movement  (TANU),  which  is  supported  by  all  the  tribes  in  the  country,  and  their  Chiefs.  There  are  people  were expressing  doubts  about  this  unity  of  the  people  and  their  Chiefs,  until  a  few  days  ago,  when  the  Chiefs  themselves   put  that support   in  writing.  Then the  ‘doubting  Thomases’  conceded,  when  they   said:  “it  is  true,  after  all,  that  the  Chiefs  are  united  with  their  people on  this” Of   tribal   Chiefs and their powers

It is also  worth  noting,   that  this  statutory  abolition  of  the  chiefs’  powers  was  carried  out  absolutely  smoothly,  and  without   any   opposition,  covert  or  overt,  neither  from  the  general  public,  nor  even  from  the  affected  Chiefs  themselves.

The   positive   support  for  that   action  can  be  attributed  to  a  number  of  factors,  such  as   the (hidden)   hatred  that  had  been generated  against  the  Chiefs ,  as  a  result  of   the  dictatorial  nature  of  their  rule;  for  they   pretty  often  ordered    the  confiscation  of  property  belonging  to  their  subjects  for  their  own  use;  and  even   ordered   arbitrary   executions  of   their  subjects,  for  questionable  reasons. This  is  amply  confirmed  by   the  following  statement,  which  is  quoted   from   the  book   titled “A Biography  of  Julius  Nyerere”,   Volume 1, (Mkuki  and  Nyota  Publishers,  Dar es Salaam, 2020),  which  says thus:- “The  authority bestowed  upon  Chiefs  (by  the colonial  Administration)  enabling  them  to  collect  taxes,  and  other kinds  of levy;  provided  them  with  plenty  of  room  for  augmenting  their  salaries  through  underhand  methods.   It has been suggested that the lack of mourning for the passing away of  the  Chieftaincy,  demonstrates  the  tenuous  hold  which  that  institution  had  had  on  the  social  and  political  life  of the  nation”. This “lack of mourning” at the demise of the Chieftaincy in 1963, probably  also  explains  the  concerns  that  are  being currently   expressed  by  those  who  fear  the  presumed  revival  of   the  powers  and  influence  of  the  said  Chiefs;  which we have  endeavoured   to  dispel in  this  short  presentation.piomsekwa@gmail.com / 0754767576.

Sources: Daily News and Cde Msekwa today.

DRC-Rwanda kerfuffle needs heads the around table but not boots on the ground

Currently, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda are at loggerheads threatening the flareup of a war between the two. There have recently been claims and counterclaims of sabotaging one another by supporting their proxies. The African Report (June, 10, 2022) reports that “in late May and early June, as the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) accused Rwanda of backing resurgent the M23 rebels, the latter counter-accused the former of working with the Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda (FDLR).” The situation is really apprehensive and dodgy. France 24 (June 17, 2022) reported that a Congolese soldier was shot dead within 25 meters inside Rwandan territory.

            Further, France 24 (June 6, 2022) quoted DRC’s President Felix Tshekedi as saying, “I hope that Rwanda has learned this lesson, because, today, it’s clear, there is no doubt, Rwanda has supported the M23 to come and attack the DRC.” Now, the jig is up. It’s upon those responsible to see the light and avoid needless suffering for innocent people in the region. Because of the nature of chronic conflict in the Eastern DRC––––laden with minerals of value that attracts plunders to invade––––the East African Community (EAC) seems to be dragged into this war soon.

            Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenyan President who also is the EAC’s Chair issued a statement saying that “in this regard, the meeting of the regional commanders of the respective defence forces, cooperating in the Nairobi Process, scheduled for Sunday 19th June 2022, in Nairobi, should finalise preparations to undertake the deployment of the regional force” (East African, 16 June, 2022).  Kenyatta wanted boot on the ground in the DRC. Again, is it feasibly realistic economically and politically? Is this the geopolitical need of the region really? Isn’t this our collective political failure? Have we miserably and purposely refused to learn from the war in Ukraine, the history of apartheid South Africa, conflicts in Cameroon, Nigeria, Somalia, and South Sudan among others––––a hard nut to crack? How can a truly sane person contemplate to launch war at the times Africa is a laughingstock the high and the mighty in the West are using as their pawn in the conflict in Ukraine? The prices and living costs are up. Yet, our sitting ducks are scheming against each other simply because their masters are busy in Ukraine. Who’ll finance this interventional war? Is this the only available solution left for the EAC? Is this EAC’s diplomacy that’s obviously failed even before taking wing? What does its constitution say regarding stroppy countries or members?

What’d EAC do then?

I’m a staunch believer of the unification of Africa. If the EAC would be united to form a one country, I’m pretty sure. It’s what it takes to resolve the conflict in the Eastern DRC. The do-nothing armies all countries have––––always dictators use to intimidate their people and torturing opponents would suffice to quash this war once and for all if they’re realistically and reasonably used for the good of all East Africans. Therefore, unity the bloc and these headless conflicts will die naturally.

            Secondly, why doesn’t the EAC want to shun or expel cantankerous members who waste a lot of resources and time fighting or invading other countries to plunder them? Expel them and thereafter take them on militarily if they rebuff diplomatic solutions, which are the most viable for the EAC. The conflict in the DRC needs heads around the table but not boots on the ground as Kenyatta and the like tend to erroneously insinuate without underscoring the impecuniousness their states have been since gaining their political independence.

            Thirdly, the EAC may impose diplomatic and economic sanctions against any party to conflict found guilty of violating another’s jurisdiction and rights. For example, any country liable of invading or plundering the resources of another must be punished heavily so that this can send strong signals to all criminals involved in this crime. Such a country, before being expelled from the bloc must be forced to issue an apology to and redress its victim[s].

What can war money achieve?

All members of the EAC are tagged as impoverished realms. The majority if not all live on conditional and nagging aid, vicious beggary and borrowing of which much benefit only rulers who have always pitilessly and shamelessly use their indigents to borrow and pay the same monies they abuse and squander pointlessly. Where can such countries get the money to throw at wanton war while their people have no even running water or stable infrastructure among others? How can rulers of the people that’s still walking unshod like fraidy-cats get such monies if anything? Their people are living in a deplorable pre-adamic era. Why can’t they see this and reckon with it? Why this war and cui bono? Are their foreign masters who are playing African countries on each other in order to keep on exploiting them? Rulers are detached from realism. They deceitfully and practically live like nawabs of the Gulf while the majority of their people live in miseries. They thrive amidst chaos and conflicts. They’ve turned national armies into private ones they abusively and offhandedly order to go to war without themselves participating in it. For them, war’s a productive enterprise and a pretext to cling to power. They live large in a paradise of wealth without delivering amidst the hell of poverty for the majority of their citizens. Power for them is for self-serving but not otherwise. If anything, their refusal to unite their countries makes them new colonial masters. The difference’s that they’re related to us while former ones weren’t. These are own tormentors and disgrace. If our rulers aren’t our new and notorious colonial masters, why’ve they refused to unite their countries that their former colonial masters divided in order to weaken, rule and exploit them cheaply and easily by playing them on each other? Aren’t our selfish and thievish potentates in our statehouses the obstacles to the unification of Africa?

In the end, EAC’s leaders need to ask themselves hard but crucial questions such as: what’d the money they envisage to throw at this useless war could provide to their people economically, politically and socially? How many dispensaries, hospital, roads, schools, and whatnots such money would build? Realistically, the conflict in Eastern DRC needs diplomatic solution but not military. It needs heads around round table but not boots on the ground. It’s never worked anywhere and if it does, it doesn’t bring everlasting reprieve or solution.

Source: African Executive Magazine today

This man is worse than even a devil itself

 How do yo feel when you find that the person you thought was a friend is but an animal that can rob you as he deems fit? What can. you  do with such a beast whose humanity is only on his face? How many are out there? Please watch and comment. THANKS.

Welcome Francia First Afro-Colombian VP

Like any white or semi-white dominated country, Colombia is a racist country towards Africans. However, methodically and slowly things have started to change. who'd believe that Francia Elena Márquez Mina, an Afro-Colombian incoming vice president, a single mother and nonstarter would be w where she is today? History has been written since Mina becomes the first Black Person to become VP in Latin America. For more info please CLICK HERE.

Kalonzo completes Azimio juggernaut

Azimio presidential aspirant Raila Odinga (right) and Wiper leaderKalonzo Musyoka. File | Nation Media Group

          By Makau Mutua Professor at SUNY Buffalo Law School and Chair of the KHRC.

I am reliably told the leading UDA blogger – who used to be a serious lawyer – was virtually reduced to tears when Wiper’s Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka trooped back to Azimio la Umoja.
There was a lot of teeth-gnashing and crude cursing up and down the UDA chain. For months, UDA presidential nominee William Ruto and his acolytes had tried all manner of skulduggery to browbeat Mr Musyoka and disrupt his membership in Azimio.
But it was all for naught. Their quixotic efforts came a cropper when recently Mr Musyoka “returned” home – to Azimio.
        Mr Musyoka’s emphatic re-entry creates a juggernaut in Azimio and assures it of a clear first-round victory on August 9. Take it to the bank.
Mr Musyoka’s triumphant return has recreated the 2002 Narc moment. If you recall, 2002 was the most critical election in the country’s history.
        Narc’s Mwai Kibaki, anchored by its indomitable captain Raila Odinga, won the election going away. Mr Kibaki missed the two-thirds mark by a whisker. And we sang in the streets and bars – “Yote Yawezekana Bila Moi” (“Everything is possible without Moi”).
        After that historic election, Kenyans were rated the happiest people on planet Earth. Hope in the country and the state had been restored. We face a similar inflection moment this August. Mr Musyoka was on the winning side that time, and so he will be this time. Make no mistake about it.
Tethered to ‘kingpins’

The August 9 election – like the 2002 one – conjures up a contest of villains against liberators, of good against greed. As then, I am sure Kenyans will not elect scoundrels. It’s only fair that Mr William Ruto, who was on the side opposite against Mr Odinga, is his main opponent today. It’s a match that Mr Ruto lost, and it’s a rematch he will lose again to Mr Odinga.
        This is why Mr Musyoka is a critical and pivotal player. In the rough and tumble of Kenyan politics, ethnicity is one of the biggest factors in balloting. Different Kenyan nations, or sub-nations, if you will, are still tethered to their “kingpins”, even though that era is clearly rapidly ending. 

        However, Mr Musyoka still remains the most influential politician in Ukambani and its diaspora. It’s estimated that the total basket of Akamba voters is 2.5 million countrywide. If so, then you can see why Mr Musyoka’s decision to back Azimio’s Mr Odinga is a big deal. This is why UDA is having sleepless nights, and has gone back to the drawing board. First, UDA tried to psyche out Azimio to choose Mr Musyoka as running mate.
        This would have killed two birds with one stone – allow Mr Ruto to choose Amani’s Musalia Mudavadi as running mate while holding onto the Gema vote. Their plans were totally wrecked when Mr Odinga tapped Narc-Kenya’s Martha Wangari Karua as running mate.
        Ms Karua is no shrinking violet. The woman from Gichugu is poised to become the first woman Deputy President when the stars align on August 9.
But more importantly, Ms Karua is the heir-apparent to the leadership of Gema. It doesn’t get any bigger than that, boys and girls. I have no doubt Ms Karua will bring north of 60 per cent of the Gema vote given the seismic shift she’s brought to the race.
        The ‘Mountain’ has come to her and Azimio. This is the single most important development in the race. Mr Odinga will carry the Gema vote for the first time this year. Mr Ruto, who’s spent years cultivating that vote, will go home in tears.
Traditional strongholds
This is why. With Mr Musyoka’s return, the Akamba vote is now locked in for Mr Odinga. Mr Ruto has no magic key, or “kamuti” (Kamba magic) to open that door. In the last two elections, the Akamba voted nearly 90 per cent for Mr Odinga. They know him. They trust him. They’ll vote for him again. Mr Odinga’s traditional strongholds of Western (Luhya), Coast, Nyanza (including the Abagusii) have held.
        Mr Odinga will do extraordinarily well in the Mountain while Mr Ruto’s expected dividend there – where he’s camped for 10 years – will see him garner only about 40 per cent, if that much. Such a number will sound the death knell for his bid. That’s where his strategy has collapsed. Mr Ruto can’t win the election without harvesting between 85-90 per cent of Gema with a turnout higher than 75 per cent. Both numbers are an impossibility.
        No math genius can transform that bitter reality. None. In the Rift Valley, the Gema diaspora there will follow the lead of its kin and kith in the Mountain. Which means a huge setback for Mr Ruto.
Even the Kalenjin vote – unlike 2013 and 2017 – may not come home to Mr Ruto as he hopes. The region now doubts that Mr Ruto can win. Some are fleeing him already. There could be an exodus. This is why Mr Ruto needed Mr Musyoka to bolt from Azimio.
Welcome home, Stevo!
Makau Mutua is SUNY Distinguished Professor and Margaret W. Wong Professor at Buffalo Law School, The State University of New York. @makaumutua

Source: Sunday Nation today.

PAST EFFORTS IN SEEKING POLITICAL RECONCILIATION.

Today’s article  is,  basically,  a  continuation  of  the  discussion  which  was  started  in  my  presentation  of  2nd  June,  2022,  under  the  heading:   “CCM  WELCOMES  POLITICAL  RECONCILIATION”;    in  which  we  focused  on  the  ruling  party’s  traditional  commitment   to  seeking  political  reconciliation  with  the  Opposition  political  parties.   
         In today’s  presentation,   we   will  focus   on  the  ruling   party’s   specific   efforts   in  forging  political  reconciliation  in  Zanzibar,   during   the  initial  difficult  years   of   ‘disagreements  and  boycotts’   by  the  main  Opposition  party  in  Zanzibar,  which,    at  the  time,  the  Civic  United  Front  (CUF).
        Zanzibar’s   pre-revolution   electoral history    had    been unduly   complicated by recurrent   post-election    disagreements,   often  leading  to   actual   violence;   plus  the  unfairly  biased   electoral    process,    which  led  to    that  country   being  granted  independence by  Britain   on  December  12th,  1963;  with   the  Arab   Sultan Seyyid Jamshid  bin  Abdullah,  as  the  ruler  thereof. Indeed, there  was  a  general  feeling,  particularly  among  members  and  supporters  of  the Afro-Shirazi  Party (ASP),   that  the   electoral   process  that  led  to Zanzibas independence, had  been  grossly  unfair  to  the  non-Arab  African  majority  population  in  Zanzibar.                                                                

        This unfairness was reflected  in  the  way  the  various  electoral  constituencies  had  been  gerrymandered.  Thus, even though  the  ASP  received   the   majority  of  votes  in  the pre-independence   general  election  of  1963;  the  Arab  coalition  of  ZNP  and  ZPPP  obtained  the  majority  of  the   seats   in  the   Zanzibar  Legislature.          

        This is what  inevitably  led  to  the  ‘glorious  Revolution’;  which  overthrew  the  ZNP/ZPPP  government  in  January,  1964;  and  consequently,  which  created  the  conditions  which  made  it  possible  for  the  Union  between  Tanganyika  and  Zanzibar,  to  take  place.
  A brief history of Zanzibar’s  post- election  disputes.
Post-election disputes in Zanzibar have a very long  history, going  back to the first general election which  was held  in Zanzibar in 1957,  during  the period  of  the British  colonial Administration  there.  Membership of the three  political parties,  which  participated  in  this  election  were all based  on  race.  They were:-the Afro-Shirazi  party; whose  membership was  predominantly  African; the  Zanzibar  Nationalist  party,  whose  membership  was  predominantly  Arab;  and  the Muslim  Association,  whose  membership  was  predominantly Indian.  That general  election  was  held  in  six constituencies;  and, according to the official; the  Afro-Shirazi party won  in  five of  those  constituencies, while the sixth  constituency was  won by the  Muslim  Association.                                   

        Thus, the  Arab Zanzibar Nationalist  party lost  in  all  he  constituencies. In  the words of the  Zanzibar government’s  Annual Report  for the year  1958; these  results  quickly produced  a socio-political  impasse.  The  said Report  says  thus: “The  general  election  of  1957  will be  remembered  for   the  manner  in  which  it  affected  the  lives  of  every  community  in  Zanzibar.   Traders,  farmers,  employed  workers, fishermen,  wakwezi, and  even  housewives; were  badly  affected.                  

        Followers  of  different  political parties  boycotted  funerals  related   to  their political rivals,  and  even  boycotted  their  religious functions. These  were  the  negative  consequences  created  by the  results  of  the  first  general  election in  these  Islands, whose people  were  previously living   happily together, in total  harmony  and  peace.”   
        But similar post-election violence  occurred in  the  subsequent general  elections, starting  with  that  of  January  1961, where it is reported that “68 people  were killed  in  the ensuing  violence, and 350 others were  injured”.  And  the  June  1961  general election,  which  also produced  similar violent   disagreements.  
        Then  came  the  pre-independence  general  election  of  October,  1963;  in  which  the  Afro-Shirazi  Party  had  obtained  54%  of  the  total  votes  cast;   but  because  of   the  colonial  Administration’s  gerrymandering  of    the  electoral  constituencies  in  the  Arab  stronghold  in  Pemba;    the  ASP  was  able  to  obtain  only  a  minority  of  13  Legislative  seats;  while  the  coalition  of  the  Arab  Zanzibar  Nationalist  Party,  and  its  ally  the  Zanzibar  and  Pemba  Peoples  Party,   obtained  a  disproportionate  majority  of  18  Legislative  seats.                           

The post-January 1964 Revolution situation.
Following  the success  of  the  January  1964  Revolution, which  brought the Afro-Shirazi  Party  into  power, and placed  President  Abeid  Amani  Karume  on the “throne” as  the  President  of  the  Peoples’ Republic of  Zanzibar; President Karume,   presumably out of accumulated anger and  rage  generated by the crooked way the Afro-Sirazi  Party  had  been unfairly denied victory by the  colonial  Administration where it had obtained the majority  of  the votes cast; angrily declared  that “there  would  be no elections  in  Zanzibar for the next fifty  years”.  
The  return to multiparty  politics.
Thus,   with the re-introduction  of the multi-party  political  system in the United Republic of Tanzania   in  1992, the Zanzibar political  scene quickly  became characterized  by a serious rift between  Chama  cha Mapinduzi  (CCM), and the United  Civic Front (CUF); following  the latter’s refusal to accept the results of the first multi-party general election  of  1995; when  Zanzibar  unfortunately returned  to its  former, pre-revolution position of antagonism between the two  main  political parties, CCM and CUF.    
        These  were,  in effect, the successors  of  the  old  antagonistic parties  of  the colonial period; with CCM  being the  true successor  of  the  Afro-Shirazi  Party (ASP);  and  CUF being  the presumed  successor to the former Arab coalition of ZNP,  and  ZPPP. 

        For  as  had  been  the  case  during  the  colonial  period,  the  results  of   the  1995   general  election  were  immediately  disputed  by  CUF; which  refused  to  recognize  them;    and  announced  its  total  ‘ non-cooperation’ with  the  incoming  CCM  government.   This   included   boycotts  by   CUF  of  all  the  sessions  of   the Zanzibar  House  of  Representatives;  as  well  as  of  the  Union  Parliament.   

        But  boycotting  these  sessions  had  its  own  adverse  consequences,  in  the  sense  that  such  action  offended  the  Constitutions  both  of  Zanzibar,  and  of  the  United  Republic;      both  of   which  provide  that  any  member  of  these  Institutions,  “shall  cease  to  be  such  member,  if  he/she  fails  to  attend  three  consecutive  sessions  thereof,  without  the  express  permission   of  the  Speaker”.                                                                     

        Thus, since  neither of the two Speakers  had  granted  permission to the  boycotting  parties,  all  of  them just  lost  their  seats (automatically) in their  respective Legislatures, on the  last  day  of  the  third  consecutive  session.  
The efforts  at  achieving  reconciliation.
Immediately  thereafter, the two  sides  embarked   on  a  serious  dialogue, aimed at reconciling  the  two  parties.  And, fortunately, with the helpful intervention of the then  Nigerian  Commonwealth  Secretary  General,  Emeka  Anyaoku, this  dialogue   produced  a  ‘peace  Agreement’  which was signed  in  1999;  that  subsequently became known  as  ‘MUAFAKA  I’ in  Kiswahili, under  which  CUF  undertook to lift  their  boycott of  the  two  Legislatures,  after  the  2000 general election.
         In the ugly situation  of  the  inevitable  political  impasse  that   followed the  1995   first  multiparty  general  election, some of the  CUF  leaders  and  supporters  even  started engaging  themselves  in  unlawful  acts aimed  at undermining  the lawful  Zanzibar  Government;  whereupon  the  government  reacted  strongly  in  order  to  maintain  peace;  with  the  result   that  some  of  them  were  arrested  and  charged  with  the  offence  of  treason;  thus  causing  many  CUF  leaders  and  members  to  flee  to  a  place  called  Shimoni  in   Mombasa,  Kenya;  for  fear  of  being  similarly  arrested.                         

        These  events  quickly  created  a   very  serious  political  impasse,  which  also  caused   great  injury  to  the  normal  social  relationships  within  the  Zanzibar  community,   when  such  boycotts  were  extended  to  social  events  like  weddings  and  funerals.   
        This  ugly  situation  lasted  for  about  four  years,  while  a  dialogue  which  had  been  initiated  by  CCM  between  the  two  sides  was  in  progress.    Eventually,   this  dialogue  resulted  in  the  signing  of  a  ‘Peace  Agreement’;   which  subsequently   became  known  as “MUAFAKA I” in  Kiswahili.   
The  2000  general  election.
        But, unfortunately, the  same  problem  re-surfaced  with  regard  to  the  2000 general  election,  and  with  even  greater  intensity, when  CUF  again  raised  the  complaint  that   “CCM  had  manipulated  the  Presidential  election  in  its  favour”.  In January  2001;  a  tragedy  occurred  in  Pemba,  where  CUF  held  a demonstration,  ostensibly  to  protest  against  the Presidential  election.                             

        However, in  the  course of that demonstration,  the  protesters  beheaded  a policeman who  was  on  duty  in the  path of the demonstration,  and  then  set  off  towards a  police  station, which  was an  armory, chanting the  words “we  are  going  to  collect  weapons”.  They reached  that Police station, and  clashed  with  the small  police contingent that was  stationed there who, in view of the  real danger   of   being overcome  and  losing  the  weapons  to  the  protesters, responded by firing at the  demonstrators, killing 22 of them.   
        The protest  against the  Presidential  results  was   caused by the  Zanzibar Electoral Commission’s   action  of  nullifying  the  election  in  all  the  16  constituencies  of  the   Urban  West  Region,  and  announcing  a  re-run  of  that   election  on  a  later  date;   whereupon  CUF,  supported  by  some  of  the  other  Opposition  parties,  decided  to  boycott   the   said   election  re-run.                                       

        The Civic United  Front  once  again  refused to  accept the results of  the Presidential election when it  candidate was declared to have lost that election; and the 1995  boycotts were repeated, plus the breaches  of the law,  which  similarly re-occurred. Consequently, some  of  the CUF leaders were  arrested and  charged  with the  offence  of  treason.  This led to a significant  number  of   CUF  leaders  and  members  fleeing to Shimoni in  Momasa,  Kenya, for fear of  being similarly  arrested.                                                        

        This again  created  a  nasty  political  impasse;  which  called  for  a  resumption  of  the  dialogue   between  CCM  and  CUF.   These   second “peace  talks”  were  again  successful,  and  resulted  in  the  signing  of  another  ‘Peace  Agreement’,  which  subsequently  became  known  as  MUAFAKA  II.
The   2005  general  election.
Once  again,  the   CUF  Presidential  candidate  lost  in  the  2005  Presidential  election.  And  CUF  refused  to  accept  those  results.  Thus, another  political  impasse  followed. The  serious “peace  talks” were  again  resumed,  this  time  aimed  at  finding a lasting,  or permanent solution, to this re-occurring  post-election  political  impasse  in  Zanzibar.   The  talks were  successful,  and  another   ‘Peace  Agreement’ was  signed  between  CCM  and  CUF;  which became  known  as  “MUAFAKA  III”;  that  recommended  the  establishment  of  a ‘Government  of  National  Unity’  (GNU)  in  Zanzibar;   to  be  effected  immediately  following  the   next   2010  general  election.  
        As a result of   this basic recommendation,  the  Zanzibar Constitution  was  promptly   amended   in  order to make provision  for  the  establishment  of  such ‘Governments of  National Unity’ thereafter,   after every general election. There are many political   benefits that are created by such. ‘Government   of National unity’.  For example, because it cuts across  party  lines,   it  attracts  the   valuable   support  of  many  of  those   who  voted  for  the  losing  party;  and  presumably  incorporates  the  best  political  brains  in  the  relevant  jurisdiction.   
Some useful lessons to be learnt.

“Boycotts”, it has been said, produce their own  negative consequences”. The CUF election boycotts   that we have described in this presentation, also  offer  some  useful lessons, which should be learnt.  For  example, in the case of the CUF boycotts of  the  Zanzibar  Legislature (and  the Union Parliament),  described above; it is worth noting that they   produced the  negative consequence  of  that  political  party literally being ‘phased out’ of  the   country’s governance system, and thus being   reduced to the  status of a mere onlooker; leaving  CCM alone to govern  the country unchallenged  (in  the absence of the usual positive challenges  which  are normally offered  by the Opposition camp  within  the  Legislature).  This non-participation also deprived a  significant  section  of Zanzibaris  of the  political  benefits  accruing  from the  ‘government  of  National  Unity’; the principal benefit  being   the resulting “peace and tranquility”; that now  exists among the people  of  Zanzibar.  
piomsekwa@gmail.com /0754767576.

Source: Daily News today.

                                                                                                                                 

WHAT AFRICA NEEDS TO DO VIS-A-VIS UKRAINE-RUSSIA CONFLICT

 When the current chair of the African Unity that’s never united even single country, Senegalese President Macky Sall’s blindly and hastily the so-called Africa’s pressure on. how to finish the Russia-Ukraine conflict, I’m sure many analysts sniggered heartily since they’d presage what’d happen, namely just a photo-op. For anybody who’s truly to him/herself on how Africa’s disrespected and ignored internationally, expected nothing consequential or substantial to come out of such a visit. Why didn’t those who advised or pressured the AU to ‘intervene’ failed to accentuate the fact that a mendicant has and will never enthused any king or nabob? Why didn’t they underline the fact that Vladimir Putin, Russian President would not listen to a chair of an insignificant entity such as the AU that’s never achieved anything other than being the club of dictators and feeders to flock and flagrantly overindulge themselves in chest-thumbing for achieving nothing for their people save their own petit safeties and fools’ paradise?

            Why the AU, its handlers, and masters failed to reckon with the fact that those forcing it to pointlessly do their dirty laundry have never bothered about our own chronic conflicts in the DRC, Maghreb, Somalia etc.––––they created and fuelled? Aren’t the same that are now acerbically inculcating fear in us arguing that Africa will suffer from food security because of Ukraine conflict while it is sitting on fertile, virgin, and uncontaminated soil? If they truly love and respect Africa, why aren’t they telling it to start producing its own food as it used to do before being colonised? Precolonial Africa’s not only self-supporting but also fed the colonisers who used to export foods from Africa to their motherlands.

 For Africa, even a chunk of it, to be fed by small countries like Argentina or Ukraine’s more than a disgrace for whoever whose marbles upstairs are still intact. How come while African countries such as Angola, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Tanzania, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Zambia, and Zimbabwe, all except Kenya, Madagascar and Botswana are bigger than Ukraine and grow wheat, yet this tiny country beat them? What’s wrong? Asper Gro Intelligence (16 April, 2015), the World Bank identified 3.84 million hectares of land suitable for wheat production in Sub-Saharan Africa, the vast majority of which’s in East Africa. This is almost equal to the amount of land dedicated to the cultivation of wheat in Argentina, one of the world’s major producers of wheat.

Considering the above findings and situation, who’ll respect us with our uncalled-for protracted food and material dependency. What a shame for Africa to depend on a small country like Ukraine for wheat while it can hugely produce its own? Do we really deservedly have to depend on others to feed us while we’re able to feed ourselves if we embark on reasonable and respectful policies that highlight our equality with other human beings globally? If we can’t feed ourselves, what does our independence mean?

            One important question the AU had to ask itself before embarrassing itself was “do those who want us to help them by taking sides respect or use us to settle their scores?” Who’s fooling whom in this obvious chicanery?" Are we blindly and willingly spiralling back to the Cold War that left the world polarised before the perishing of the then USSR? If the AU’s such a dependable and respectable player, why don’t we see either Asia or South America kowtow before Putin if we worth of our salt so as to be taken seriously? Why didn’t the AU refrain itself from this shame? Look at China and India. They refused to be used by any of the conflicants to preserve their integrity and position globally.

            To prove how insignificant the AU is viewed, Sall’s words speaks volumes and signify how Africa went to Moscow to degrade itself trying to entice and serve two masters at a time, which is next to never. The jig is up now. Sall’s quoted as saying “a number of countries voted for resolutions at the United Nations. The position of Africa is very heterogeneous but despite heavy pressure, many countries still did not denounce Russia's position.”

To pat him on the shoulders, Putin was quoted as saying "Africa's political role in the international arena, in general, is growing. We believe that Africa as a whole and its individual states, with which we traditionally have very good, without any exaggeration, friendly relations, have great prospects, and on this basis we intend to further develop our relations with Africa as a whole and with its individual states.” What a prefect and headmaster response!

            Is there anything meaningful from such an audience with Putin as far as the conflict is concerned? Why doesn’t Africa want to face the reality that it is always a subject of pooh-pooh? If you weigh Africa’s significance globally compared to small countries such as Israel, Palestine and Ukraine, which have proved to cause jitters globally, you’ll underscore the message here.

            Why the AU failed to consider and weigh as to who benefits us between the Russia and the West now and historically? I understand that Ukraine’s a part of the defunct USSR. Again, if we consider who’d what it takes then, we can easily weigh among the trio, namely Russia, Ukraine and the West as to whom we need to ally with if needs be. Before the conflict in Ukraine, who’d bother or care about overdependent Africa suffering from dependency syndrome?

In sum, next time, the AU or any African leaders/ruler, should look self in the mirror before adding more ignominy and ire to all Africans needlessly as it recently happened in the case in point. What did the AU achieve? I’d advise: instead of wasting time trying to achieve or ask for what you can’t get, Africa should start thinking about its own food security by filling in the existing gaps that have shamelessly forced it to depend on a small country like Ukraine, which covers only 603, 628 km² compared to Africa’s 30,370, 000 km² to feed Africa. Shame on us.

            Africa’s goofs and quandaries need profound explanations to understand. It doesn’t convince common sense for the country that’s 1/50 of Africa to feed Africa. The analogous allegory I can give here’s of a baby breastfeeding its mother.  But again, Ukraine does feed Africa. Then what’s iniquitous here? What’s the miracle here? Are Africans like elephants? Elephants are huge. They’ve huge body mass and brains. Yet, they’re destroyed by a small human to the verge of extinction. Again, elephants are beasts. They’re not human. Again, who are Africans in such an equation?

            I’m currently working on an academic book on how Africa’s self-inflicted harm resulting from land leasing while its people are going to without food not to mention many suffering from food insecurity and malnutrition in some countries such as in the horn of Africa currently.

In sum, I don’t get it for a humongous country like Sudan covering the area of 1, 886,068 km²––––which is currently is listed among African countries leasing their soil to Middle East countries to produce food for their population­­­––––to starve simply because a country like Ukraine that’s less than 1/3 of the same’s at war and thus can’t feed it. Is the problem here natural or nurtured? What are all heads of Sudanese as a replica of Africa doing? Ironically, while Sudan’s starving and weeping for wheat from Ukraine, the same’s the guts to pointlessly lease out its land to Gulf countries to produce food for their citizens while its own people are starving to death! What are the hands and heads of Sudanese doing? Food’s power. S/he who’s able to feed oneself is a free person. Hunger’s slavery. This has become evident to Europe whose power dependency on Russia turned it into a laughingstock when it failed to fully apply sanctions against Russia. Had it dared, its economy and posh life would become the things of the past.

Source: Nkwazi Mhango, African Executive Today.

Uzembe huu Tulaumu Wachina au Tujilaumu?

Hakuna shaka wala ubishi hata chembe. Maneno mazito na ya kizalendo ya Mheshimiwa Mbunge wa Gairo (CCM) Ahmed Shabiby ambaye alisema kuwa wachina wanaingia Tanzania kama shamba la bibi wakati watanzania wakizuia kuingia China kwa kisingizio cha Ukovi yanahuzunisha na kuamsha hasira kiasi cha kuhoji uwezo wetu wa kufikiri. Shabiby alitoa duku duku hili akichangia kwenye kikao cha Bunge kinchoendelea. Mchango wa Shabiby na wengine ulinifanya kujiuliza swali moja kuu. Je China mkoloni mpya tena wa kiuchumi? Je ni wangapi wanaliona hili na wanafanya nini kulidurusu na kulipatia jawabu mujarabu? Je hali ikoje? Je nani alaumiwe hapa kati yetu na wachina waliotugeuza kichwa cha mwendawazimu kinyozi kujifunzia kunyoa? Je nani anafaidika na nani anaumia na kwanini? Haya ndiyo maswali leo nitajaribu kuyadurusu na kuyapatia majibu.

       Mbali na Mhe. Shabiby, mwingine aliyegusia suala la wachina kutuhujumu ni Mhe. Joseph Kasheku Msukuma (Geita, CCM) aliyeonyesha uzalendo wa aina yake akichangia hoja ya uraia pacha. Mhe. Msukuma bila woga, aligusia suala la wachina kutamalaki nchini na mashine za kuchezesha kamari. Je tumeshindwa kununua hizi mashine na watu wetu wakazitumia na kupiga fedha kama wanavyofanya wachina au hawa wageni kuna vigogo nyuma yao ambao hawataki kuona ukweli? Je ni mchezo ule ule kama tuliowahi kufanyiwa wakati wa sakata la jambazi Chavda aliyekuwa akitumiwa na baadhi ya wakubwa wasiowaaminifu kuhujumu taifa letu? Hivi kweli hatuna watu wenye uwezo wa kununua na kusimamia mashine za kamari hadi waje wachina? Je hatuna watu wenye uwezo wa kufanya umachinga wanaofanya wachina kweli ama tunahujumiana?

       Niseme wazi. Kwanza, huu ni ubaguzi tena wa kujibagua na kuwapa nafasi wengine watuumize hata kutubagua kama wachina walivyoonyesha wakati wa kuzuka kwa Ukovi ambao unasemekana ulianzia kwao kwenye mji wa Wuhan. Pamoja na ukweli huu, wale wale walitubagua waafrika na kusingizia kuwa gonjwa hili lilotokea Afrika wakati lilitokea Wuhan. Pia, kama wenzao toka Asia, wanajulikana kwa ubaguzi wao japo si wote.

       Je kwanini nasema tunajibagua na kuwapa wabaguzi fursa ya kutubagua na kutunyonya kirejareja? Tumewaruhusu wachina kufanya umachinga kwetu ambapo hatuwezi kufanya hivyo kwao. Mhe. Shabiby alishangaa kuona wachina wakiuza plastiki Kariakoo kana kwamba watanzania hawa uwezo wa kufanya hivyo. Alitahadharisha kwa uchungu kuwa tusipoangalia, tutabakia kufanya umachinga wa mazao yetu huku bidhaa nyingine wakichuuza na kuuza wageni.

       Mbali na kufanya umachinga nchini wakati sisi haturuhusiwi kufanya hivyo japo, hata hivyo, hatuna machinga wa kwenda China, tumewaruhusu wachina kuingia nchini watakavyo wakati sisi haturuhusiwi hata kwenda kwao. Je hapa tutawalaumu wachina kwa kuingia nchini watakavyo wakati wakiwazuia watu wetu kwa sisi kushindwa kuwapiga marufuku? Rejea mchango wa Mbunge Shabiby bungeni akilalamikia utitiri wa wachina mitaani wakifanya umachinga. Nani anaweza kuuza mahindi nchini China au kuuza mitishamba kama wafanyavyo wachina kwetu? Je hatunao waganga wengi wa kienyeji wakichina hata kikorea na wengine wasiojua Kiswahili wala kiingereza wanaouza mitishamba ya kichina na kikorea kana kwamba sisi hatunayo? Je huyu mtu asiyejua Kiswahili anawasilianaje na wateja wake? Je mitishamba yake ni salama au hatarishi? Nani anagahaika kuipima na kujiridhisha na viwango vyake? Je kuendelea kuruhusu upuuzi huu siyo kuweka afya za watu wetu rehani?

Mbali na madawa ya kienyeji, wachina wanasifika kwa kutuletea eti madadawa ya kuongeza makalio wakati wachina wenyewe hawana hayo makalio.  Nani anahitaji makalio hadi yapanuliwe? Je huku siyo kutumia ujinga na ulimbukeni wetu kutuumiza? Nani anajiuliza wapi pa kuwapata hawa waleta madawa ya makalio kama yataleta madhara kwa wapumbavu wetu wanaoyapwakia? Wanawajaza watu wetu kansa na upumbuvu huku nasi tukichekelea kana kwamba hayatuhusu. Tumekuwa wa hovyo kiasi cha kufanyiwa majaribio na kuruhusu watu watufanya shamba la bibi kirahisi hivi! Je hapa nani amlaumu nani kati yetu na wachina na wengine waliotugeuza shamba la bibi?

Sitashagaa kukuta wachina wakianza kuuza mahindi hata ugoro kwa vile sisi tumelala na kuzubaa. Sitashangaa kutukuta kile kinachowakuta wakenya kwa sasa ambapo wanaagiza samaki waliolishwa madawa wakati wachina wale wale wakisafirisha samaki safi toka Kenya kwenda kwao. Sitashangaa kuona wachina wakigeuka madalali wa majumba tena yetu kwa vile sisi tumelala fofo na kuzubaa. Sitashangaa kukuta wachina wakijazana kwenye migodi yetu mbali na mbuga za wanyama wakiwinda na kuongoza watalii wakati watu wetu hawana ajira wala namna ya kufaidika na raslima za taifa lao walizopewa na Mungu.

Nimalizie kwa kusema wazi kuwa sina chuki wala ugomvi na wachina na wageni wengine kama watafuata sheria na taratibu na kufanya shughuli wanazopaswa kuzifanya chini ya sera ya uwekezaji lakini siyo umachinga. Pia nichukue fursa hii kuisihi na kuishauri serikali iangalie kwa makini kadhia hii ya wachina na wageni wengine ambao wanafanya shughuli ambazo kisheria zinapaswa kufanywa na watu wetu. Pia, ufanyike uchunguzi kuhusu namna wachina na wengine wanavyoruhusiwa kuingia nchini na kuvunja sheria kwa kufanya umachinga. Kama tumechoka sana hivi, basi wekeni masharti lau ya kuwalazimisha wageni kumilki hizi biashara kwa ubia wa nusu kwa nusu na wananchi wetu lau taifa lifaidike na fursa hizi tunazovuja kwa mauti ya taifa na watu wake. Kila siku Mhe. Rais anahubiri diplomasia ya uchumi ilhali nyumbani anahujumiwa na mazabe na uzembe kama huu.

Chanzo: Raia Mwema.