Let Us All Serve and Save Eastern DR Congo

THE 14-nation Southern African Development Community (SADC) has expressed its readiness to send troops to DRC to ensure peace and stability in the country, especially in the crisis-ridden eastern part of the country.

This is a commendable move indeed. It is not a secret that DRC, one of, if not the most natural resource-endowed country in Africa, has experienced turmoil for most of its independent life, especially from the last half of the 1990s, leaving a trail of destruction and misery in its wake.

The facts and figures on such destruction and misery in the vast mineral reach country since the trouble began in its eastern province way back in 1998 are very chilling to say the least. It has been reported that more than 6 million people have died since then in the fighting between government and rebel forces, the vast majority having died from non-violent causes including disease, malnutrition and hunger.

Some 45,000 people continue to die each month from such war-related causes, a human tragedy indeed. Although many have returned home as violence subsided on some occasions, there are still some 1.5 million internally displaced persons or refugees clustered in neighbouring countries, including Tanzania, posing a number of problems, including environmental plunder and security risks for the host nations.

Hopefully, the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR) will respond positively to the SADC offer as resolved at the end of the regional body's Troika Summit in Dar es Salaam on Tuesday. Addressing a news conference at the end of the summit, President Jakaya Kikwete said the regional grouping would gladly participate in the effort to bring peace to eastern DRC by providing military and logistic support in DRC if ICGLR decides so.

Mr Kikwete is the current Chair of the SADC's Organ on Democracy, Defence and Security. The conflict in the DRC is threatening peace, security and stability not only to Tanzania but also to other countries in the region. A regional solution to the conflict is therefore most welcome.

The international community has also got a key role to play by supporting the ICGLR effort to end the conflict in DRC as well as stepping up humanitarian assistance to the displaced people in the war zone. Let such combined efforts go into motion more now than before to check further tragedy in that part of the region.

Doesn't Need the Pentagon's Charity - Why I'm Grumpy About Dod's Development Programs in Africa

Washington, DC — In her recent Foreign Policy column, "The Pivot to Africa," Rosa Brooks made a plea for letting go of comfortable old assumptions about roles and missions between the civilian and non-civilian sides of the US government, particularly when it comes to US civil-military cooperation in Africa. My plea is for an evidence-based discussion of US development policy and its intersection with US national security.

US interests will be ill-served if we merely move from comfortable old (and false) assumptions about poverty and terrorism in Africa to comfortable new (and equally false) assumptions about "whole-of-government responses" to complex challenges. While the United States should of course think and work creatively, skepticism and, dare I say, opposition, from civilian agencies to AFRICOM taking on non-traditional military roles is not rooted in turf battles but in legitimate concerns about efficiency and results.

In terms of comfortable old assumptions about poverty and terrorism, the reality is far more complex than "poverty breeds terrorism." We know from empirical research that underlying "root causes"--socioeconomic, political, and cultural drivers of violent extremism--are important.

However, their salience varies greatly from one situation to another, their role is more often indirect than direct, and they are best understood in conjunction with other factors-- for example, the influence of a charismatic leader; the quest for dignity, recognition and respect; or a profound sense of marginalization and victimization.

If the Defense Department's humanitarian assistance in Africa is intended to prevent or counter threats to the United States from violent extremists, then these programs should be predicated on context-specific analysis of likely drivers of violent extremism and be independently evaluated to verify that the programs are effective. There is no evidence of either.

This has gotten lost in the rush to comfortable new assumptions about whole-of-government responses to complex challenges. AFRICOM was intended to be a new breed of geographic command: non-kinetic (no longer in the wake of the operation in Libya), whose primary objective would be to lend security sector support to diplomacy and development efforts to "prevent problems from becoming crises, and crises from becoming catastrophes."

Specifically, it "would help build the capacity of African countries to reduce conflict, improve security, deny terrorists sanctuary and support crisis response." Accordingly, interagency participation in the command (for instance, one of two deputy commanders would be a civilian) would ensure that its efforts supported US diplomacy and development efforts.

In other words, AFRICOM was intended to support civilian efforts to confront drivers of violent extremism, not to attempt to do so directly.

Unfortunately, AFRICOM's mission was muddled when it was launched in 2007 and remains muddled today. As Brooks writes,

The Pentagon is right to see poverty, underdevelopment, disease, repression, human rights abuses, and conflict as likely drivers of future security threats to the United States. And if the Defense Department's job is to defend the United States, the mission must surely include preventing threats.

Yet the fact that "poverty, underdevelopment, disease, repression, human rights abuses, and conflict" persist in many African countries is the result of myriad factors. Their mere existence does not make any of them a driver of transnational violent extremism. Nor is it evidence that civilian-led development and diplomatic efforts in these regards have failed or that a void exists that the Defense Department (DOD) must step into.

At the time AFRICOM was announced, US development-related assistance to Africa totaled nearly $9 billion; security assistance amounted to $250 million, or 1/36th of non-security related assistance. The proportion is still roughly the same now. If we look more specifically at DOD's so-called humanitarian assistance in Africa--more or less what we call development assistance in the civilian world--it is not clear that the Defense Department even knows how much it is spending.

Through some budget sleuthing, it appears that AFRICOM spent around $150 million on development and health-related activities in FY2011; 87% of this was HIV/AIDS-related. That left $17 million in "humanitarian assistance" for countering the "likely drivers of future security threats to the US"--hardly an amount to get excited over, much less see lasting impact from. In contrast, USAID's Africa bureau alone programmed more than $4.1 billion in development assistance for FY2011. (This excludes food aid and emergency response programs; Millennium Challenge Corporation funds; and other State-funded, non-security sector programs.) The militarization of US aid to Africa is a myth.

What I found irksome about the discussion at the time AFRICOM stood up--and I still find irksome today--is the suggestion that USAID's initial grumpiness at spending staff time and program resources to help AFRICOM do work that it had minimal resources and no competency or experience to do was somehow a sign of being unreasonable, short-sighted, and turf conscious. The real root of this grumpiness came from understanding that "development is more than improvements in people's well-being: it also describes the capacity of the system to provide the circumstances for that well-being," to borrow some words from my colleague, Owen Barder. Development is not simply providing an input (digging a well or handing out used clothes) that improves a person's well-being for only as long as the assistance is provided.

Yet there is still little evidence that the Defense Department grasps that development is more than temporary fixes, much less that it understands how security and development intersect in specific situations. Introducing any resource into a resource-scarce environment is an inherently political act, affecting the haves and have-nots. The non-security sector programs DOD conducts are largely ad hoc and without regard for a broader development strategy or plan to support lasting change. In fact, they are explicitly intended to increase the visibility, access, and influence of DOD above all else.

While USAID is not a perfect agency when it comes to fostering development around the world, it is a serious professional institution with more than 50 years of development experience, lessons learned, expert staff, resources, and credibility with the peoples and governments where it works. In Africa, security is a pre-requisite for development; AFRICOM's role in helping to professionalize African militaries is vitally important to achieving US governance and development objectives there. DOD and USAID should be informed of the other's priorities and coordinate strategies and efforts where it makes sense; some organizational integration can help this. But that does not mean either should attempt to do the other's job.

Development done badly is not only a waste of taxpayer resources; it's harmful to the societies we're trying to assist and detrimental to the rest of the US government's development efforts--and, by extension, to our broader national interests. If development progress in Africa is important to our national security, then it's too important to leave it in the hands of newcomers without the knowledge, expertise, mandate, or resources to help promote it effectively. If that's what whole-of-government means, then we should expect outcomes that fall far short of our goals.

KWANINI WAISLAMU HAWANA IMANI NA VITENGO VINAVYOHUSIKA NA TAKWIMU?

Hili ni suala muhimu kulipatia jibu na kulifahamu kwa kina sisi kama Waislamu. Wengi wana maoni kuwa kitendo cha Waislamu kuomba kushirikishwa katika Sensa na kuomba kuingizwa kwa swali la Dini ni ukorofi tu wa Waislamu. Ukweli unafichwa na makala hii ina lengo la kuwajuza watu vipengele kadhaa juu ya hila katika sensa zilizopita.

Makala hii itadhihisha "uchakachuaji uliofanyika na ofisi za serikali katika kutangaza mgawanyiko wa watu kwa mujibu wa dini kabla ya serikali ya Mwalimu Nyerere kuamua kulifuta swali la dini katika sensa ya Tanzania iliyofanyika mwaka 1978.

Tanganyika au Tanzania imeshafanya sensa mara 6. Mara mbili za mwanzo sensa ilifanyika kama Tanganyika chini ya mkoloni wa Kiingereza yaani mwaka 1948 na mwaka 1957. Kisha sensa nne zilizobaki zilifanyika Tanganyika na Jamhuri ya Watu wa Zanzibar zikiwa zimeshaungana. Sensa ya mwanzo ya Tanzania huru iliyoungana iifanyika mwaka 1967 na hii ilikuwa ni sensa ya mwisho kuuliza swali la dini. Sensa zilizobaki zilifanyika mwaka 1978, 1988 na 2002. Sensa ya mwaka huu, 2012 itakuwa ni ya saba katika historia ya nchi yetu na ya tano ya Tanzania huru iliyoungana.

Sensa ya mwisho ya Tanganyika chini ya mkoloni wa Kiingereza katika mwaka 1957 ilionyesha kuwa Tanganyika ina Waislamu 58%, Wakristo 32% na Wapagani 10%. Uwiano kati ya Waislamu na Wakristo ilikuwa ni karibu 2:1 yaani kila penye watu watatu, 2 ni Waislamu na 1 ni mkristo, vile vile unaweza kusema waislamu walikuwa ni karibu mara mbili ya wakristo kiidadi Tanzania.

Mwaka 1967 ndio uliotoa matokeo ya ajabu ambayo mpaka leo sio tu Waislamu bali mtu yoyote aliye na akili timamu ana haki ya kuhoji matokeo hayo. Matokeo haya yalionyesha mgawanyiko wa kidini kama ifuatavyo:

WAKRISTO: 33.5% yaani wameongezeka kwa 1.5% kulinganisha na sensa ya 1957.

WAISLAMU: 31.4% yaani wamepungua kwa 26.6% katika kipindi cha miaka 10 tu. Hii haikuwahi kutokea sehemu yoyote Duniani iwapo sehemu hiyo haikukabiliwa na janga kama vile vita au jambo lolote lilisababisha idadi kubwa ya watu kufariki. Hata china ambayo imeweka sheria ya kuzaa mtoto mmoja tu basi haikuwahi kupungikiwa na watu au kundi fulani la watu katika nchi yao.

WAPAGANI: 34.3% yaani wameongezeka kwa 24.3% kwa kipindi cha miaka 10. Haya nayo ni maajabu, yaani unaweza ukadhani labda Tanzania ina tatizo la Waislamu kuwacha dini yao na kuwa wapagani. Hili nalo halina ushahidi wowote kuwa lilitokea katika kipindi hicho.

Athari kubwa ya kimabadiliko iliyotekea katika sensa hii ni kujumuishwa kwa Wazanzibari katika sensa kwa mara ya kwanza. Kwa vile Wazanzibari karibu 98% ni Waislamu tegemeo lilikuwa Waislamu Tanzania wapindukie angalau 65% (kutoka 58% ya mwaka 57 ambayo haikujumuisha Wazanzibari) ya watu wote lakini badala yake wakashuka hadi 31.4%

Tukumbuke kuwa Waislamu ndio watu ambao mara nyingi hulaumiwa kutofuata uzazi wa majira, hulaumiwa kwa kuozesha mabinti zao mapema na ni dini inayoruhusu mume mmoja kuoa wake wanne, haya yote hupelekea ongezeko kubwa la idadi, lakini ajabu ni kuwa Waislamu walipungua, si kwa asilimia 2 - 3% bali kwa 26.6%!

Hivyo ni wazi Takwimu zilizotolewa na serikali ya Mwalimu Nyerere ama zilikuwa ni za uongo wa makusudi ya kupotosha au zina makosa. Lakini cha kushangaza ni kuwa baada ya sensa hiyo Serikali ya Mwalimu Nyerere iliamrisha kipengele cha dini kuenguliwa kwenye sensa bila ya kueleza Watanzania lengo la kukiondoa kipengele hicho. wakati huo tayari Tanzania ilishaanza kugubikwa na wingu la udini baada ya Mwalimu Nyerere kuamua kuivunja Jumuiya adhimu ya Waislamu East Africa Muslim Walfare Society (EAMWS) na serikali kuunda Jumuiya ambayo mpaka leo waislamu wana mashaka nayo ambayo ni BAKWATA. Naomba sana tuzingatie nukta hii kuwa BAKWATA haikuundwa na Waislamu bali iliundwa na Serikali iliyoongozwa na Mwalimu Nyerere.

Kudhihirishwa kuwa mwaka 1967 udini ndio ulikuwa unaanza kushamiri Tanzania sio tu katika sensa na kuvunjwa kwa EAMWS na kuundwa kwa BAKWATA, mwaka 1967 ndio mwaka wa Azimio la Arusha na mwaka wa kesi ya uhaini iliyojumuisha Waislamu na wengi wakawekwa rumande kwa tuhuma hizo akiwemo wanasiasa maarufu ambao waliiunga mkono EAMWS akina marehemu Bibi Titi Muhammed na Tewa Said Tewa.

Hivyo leo utaweza je kuwalaumu Waislamu kwa kukosa imani na serikali katika hoja ya sensa? Mara nyingi panapotokea badiliko kubwa kama lile ambalo linaaminika kuwa ni la kuchakachuliwa yaani Waislamu kupungua Tanzania kwa 26.6% na wapagani kuongezeka Tanzania kwa 24.3 katika kipindi cha miaka 10 (jambo ambalo mtaalamu yoyote wa sensa au takwimu hawezi kukubaliana nalo) palitegemwa pfanyike utafiti wa sababu za mabadiliko hayo, lakini hakuna aliyeamua kufanya hivyo na sababu kuu ni kuwa watu walijua wazi kuwa takwimu hizo ni za kupika.

Source: Mapara

Na Ndugu Mohamed Said anaandika juu ya KITENDAWILI CHA SENSA TANZANIA na anaelezea kuwa:

Theluthi mbili ya Waislam wote wa Afrika ya Mashariki wanaishi Tanzania mbayo ndiyo nchi yenye watu wengi kuliko zote katika Afrika ya Mashariki, yaani Kenya, Uganda na Tanzania. Hii ni pamoja na nchi ya Kiislam yenye Waislam takriban 90% na kuna wakati ilikuwa ndiyo kitovu cha maarifa ya Kiislam katika Afrika ya Mashariki na Kati. Kutokana na sensa ya mwaka 1957, kwa kila Waislam watatu walikuwepo Wakristo wawili. Kwa wakati ule hii ilionyesha kuwa Tanganyika ilikuwa na Waislam wengi katika nchi zote Kusini ya Ikweta. Lakini katika sensa ya kwanza mwaka 1967 baada ya uhuru jumla ya Wakristo Tanzania Bara ilikuwa asilimia 32 % na Waislam 30% Wapagani asilimia 37%. Sensa hii inaonyesha kuwa Wapagani ndiyo walio wengi Tanzania. Sensa hii ya mwaka 1967 haikueleza kwa nini katika kipindi cha miaka kumi kwa ghafla Waislam wamepungua nchini au kwa nini ghafla Wapagani wameongozeka katika nchi ya waumini. Hii ndiyo ilikuwa sensa ya mwisho iliyokuwa ikionyesha mgawanyo wa dini. Inaaminika kuwa matokeo ya sensa hii yalifanyiwa mabadiliko kwa ajili ya sababu za kisiasa pale ilipobainika kuwa Waislam Tanzania walikuwa wengi kupita Wakristo. Upo ushahidi kuwa mwaka 1970, ilipobainika kuwa Waislam ni wengi Tanzania serikali iliiamrisha Idara ya Takwimu kuchoma moto matokeo yote ya sensa ya mwaka 1970. Si tabu kwa hivi leo kutambua ni nani walitoa amri hii na kwa sababu zipi. Bahati mbaya mgao wa madaraka katika siasa Tanzania umewatupa nje Waislam, ingawa inafahamika kuwa usalama na utulivu wa nchi yeyote unategemea mizani hii kuwa sawa. Vyanzo tofauti vya takwimu vinatoa takwimu tofauti zinazopingana kuhusu hesabu ya Waislam na Wakristo katika Tanzania. Hii inatokana na ukweli kuwa somo hili limefanywa nyeti na la kutisha sana. Lakini wanaotishwa na hesabu na takwimu za sensa si Waislam bali ni Wakristo na makanisa yao. Katika nchi za Kiafrika ambazo zina wafuasi wengi wa dini hizi mbili, kwa mfano Tanzania na Nigeria, uchunguzi wa kuwa ni dini gani ina wafuasi wengi kupita mwenzake ni chanzo cha mgongano na mzozo. Tatizo hili lipo Tanzania. D.B. Barret anasema kuwa Waislam Tanzania ni wachache wakilinganishwa na Wakristo. Takwimu zake zinaeleza kuwa Waislam ni 26%, Wakristo 45% na Wapagani ni 28%. Takwimu za Tanzania National Demographic Survey za mwaka wa 1973 zinaonyesha kuwa Waislam ni wengi kidogo kupita Wakristo wakiwa 40%, Wakristo 38.9% na Wapagani 21.1%. Lakini takwimu za Africa South of the Sahara, zinaonyesha Waislam ni wengi Tanzania kwa 60%. Takwimu hizi zimebaki hivyo bila ya mabadiliko toka mwaka 1982. Kwa kuwa utafiti wa Waislam wenyewe katika suala hili ni mdogo sana au haupo kabisa, suala la wingi wa Waislam katika Tanzania halijafanyiwa utafiti na Waislam wenyewe. Mgao wa madaraka na kugawana vyeo haikupashwa kuwa sababu ya migongano na mifarakano katika Afrika huru. Lakini kwa bahati mbaya sana hii imekuja kuwa sababu ya mifarakano katika serikali za wananchi wenyewe. Jambo hili limekuwa ni suala nyeti kwa sababu ukabila, udini na kujuana ni kitu muhimu katika serikali za Afrika. Mgawanyo wa madaraka na wingi wa wafuasi katika dini au kabila havikuwa vitu vilivyokuwa vikiwashughulisha wananchi wakati wa ukoloni kiasi cha kuleta mifarakano katika jamii. Kwa bahati nzuri ukabila hauna nguvu Tanzania lakini dini imekuwa chanzo cha ubaguzi toka zama za ukoloni, tofauti ni kuwa wakati wa ukoloni waliokuwa wakiwabagua Waislam hawakuwa Wakristo weusi bali Wazungu. Ukristo ni dini mpya Tanzania kwa kuwa uliingizwa katika karne ya kumi na nane na wamisionari. Kanisa na Mwafrika Mkristo ni matokeo ya ukoloni. Kwa ajili hii basi historia ya Kanisa katika Afrika ni ile ya kushirikiana na kuwa tiifu kwa serikali ya kikoloni. Chini ya ukoloni, taratibu Kanisa likaweza kujenga uhusiano maalum kati yake na serikali pamoja na Mkristo Mwafrika ambae imemuelimisha katika shule zake za misheni. Mwafrika Mkristo akawa ananufaika na mfumo wa kikoloni. Waislam wakawa wanataabika kwa kuwa dini yao ilikuwa inapingana na dini ya mtawala kuanzia Wajerumani hadi Waingereza. Mwafrika Mkristo akawa mnyeyekevu kwa serikali wakati wa ukoloni na baada ya kupatikana kwa uhuru akaja kushika madaraka ya serikali. Waislam wakatengwa na kuteswa katika ukoloni kwa kubaguliwa na kunyimwa elimu hivyo kuwaondolea fursa ya maendeleo. Kuwepo kwa Waislam kama raia na ili kuinusuru dini yao ilibidi Waislam wasimame kuutokomeza ukoloni. Baada ya uhuru Kanisa likabaki na msimamo wake wa enzi ya ukoloni wa kutii na kujipendekeza kwa serikali mpya iliyokuwa madarakani. Ushirika huu kati ya Kanisa na serikali, uliojengwa na tabia ya Kanisa ya kukubaliana na mfumo wowote wa serikali ulililelewa vyema na umeisaidia sana Kanisa. Kanisa likaweza kujijengea mazingira mazuri ya kufanya shughuli zake bila ya kipingamizi wala wasiwasi. Kutokana na uhusiano huu maalum Kanisa likajifanyia msingi imara wenye nguvu kutokana wa Wakristo waliowasomesha katika shule zao. Kanisa likatumia nafasi na uhusiano huu kwanza na serikali ya kikoloni kisha na serikali ya wananchi kujijengea himaya ambayo wafuasi wake wakaja kushika nafasi zote muhimu katika uongozi wa juu wa serikali, bunge na mahakama katika Tanzania. Katika miaka yake mia moja tu Kanisa likaweza kupata safu yake ya viongozi ambao wanadhibiti kila sekta katika jamii ya Watanzania. Waingereza walipokuja kuitawala Tanganyika (kama Tanzania inavyojulikana) baada ya kuondoka Wajerumni baada ya Vita Kuu ya Kwanza, Wajeruamani walikuwa wameshafanya kazi ya kutosha ya kuiweka Tanganyika ndani ya mamlaka mbalimbali za Kikristo. Tanganyika ilikuwa imegawanywa katika mamlaka za Kikristo kutoka nchi tofauti za Ulaya. Kanisa Katoliki ambalo ndilo lenye nguvu zaidi, lilikuwa tayari limeshajikita Tanganyika. White Fathers walikuwa wapo Tabora, Karema, Kigoma, Mbeya, Mwanza na Bukoba; Holy Ghost Fathers walikuwa Morogoro na Kilimanjaro; Benedictine Fathers walikwepo Peramiho na Ndanda; Capuchin Fathers walikuwepo Dar es Salaam; Consolata Fathers walikuwepo Iringa na Meru; Passionist Fathers walikuwa Dodoma; Pallotine Fathers walikuwa Mbulu; Maryknoll Fathers walikuwapo Musoma; na Rosmillian Fathers walikuwa Iringa. Wamisionari hawa walipotia mguu pwani ya Afrika ya Mashariki, nia yao hasa ilikuwa kuufuta Uislam. Wakazi wa pwani hii iliyokuwa ikijulikana kama Zanj waliuona Ukrsto kwa mara ya kwanza kabisa mwaka 1498 Wareno walipofika sehemu hizo. Mwaka 1567 wamishionari wa Augustinian waliingia Afrika ya Mashariki ili kupambana na Uislam ili Ukristo uwe dini ya dunia nzima. Kadinali Lavigirie alianzisha The White Fathers, taasisi ya Kanisa Katoliki kwa kusudi maalum la kuupiga vita UislamWakati huo huo Church Missionary Society (CMS) ilikuwa imejitwisha kazi ya kuondoa ulimwengu kutokana na Uislam, ujinga na giza. Hadi hii leo White Fathers wapo Tanzania wakiendelea kufanya kazi iliyowaleta Tanganyika zaidi ya miaka mia iliyopita. Wajerumani walipofika Tanganyika waliwakuta Waislam wanafahamu kuandika, kusoma na walikuwa wameelimika katika hesabu. Mmishionari Ludwig Krapf alipofika kwa Chifu Kimweri wa Usambaa mwaka 1848 alimkuta yeye na wanae wote wanajua kusoma. Herufi walizokuwa wakitumia zilikuwa za Kiarabu. Wajerumani kwa ajili hii basi waliwaajiri Waislam kama walimu, wakalimani na makarani serikalini. Wamisionari na wakoloni waliona wivu na nyoyo zao zikaingia hasad kwa maendeleo haya waliyoyakuta kwa Waislam. Kubwa zaidi ni kuwa walikuwa wamekuja kustaarabisha watu “washenzi” badala yake wamewakuta watu waliostaaarabika na wanye utamaduni wa kupendeza. Elimu hii yote na utamaduni huu wa hali ya juu ulikuwa unatokana na Uislam na shule zake zilizojulikana kama madras. Hapo ndipo zilipoaanza mbinu ya kuvunja maendeleo haya yote. Vita vilivyodumu hadi hii leo. Herufi za Kiarabu zikapigwa marufuku kutumika na badala yake watu wakalazimishwa kujifunza herufi za Kirumi. Muislam ambae jana alipoingia kulala alikuwa anaitwa ameelimika akaamka asubuhi yake mjinga, hana elimu, hajui kusoma wala kuandika. Njama hizi zote dhidi ya Uislam ilikuwa sehemu ya makubaliano kama ilivyoandikwa katika kifungu IV cha Mkutano wa Berlin wa mwaka 1884. Kifungu hicho kilikuwa kinasema kuwa Ukristo ni lazima ulindwe dhidi ya Uislam. Kati ya mwaka 1888-1892 katika kutekeleza kifungu hicho kama ilivyokubalika katia Mkutano wa Berlin, Imperial British East Africa Company ilitumia nguvu za kisiasa na kijeshi kuulinda Ukristo katika Afrika ya Mashariki. Ombwe lililoachwa na elimu ya Kiislam ikajazwa na elimu ya Kanisa chini ya usimamizi wa Waingereza. Kanisa hivi sasa linaeneza uongo na propaganda kuwa lenyewe ndilo lililoweka msingi wa kwanza wa elimu Tanganyika. Ukweli ni kuwa Wamisionari walifuata nyayo za madras na walimu wa kwanza katika shule za misheni walikuwa Waislam ambao hawakusoma katika shule za kanisa bali katika madras. Kwa kipindi cha zaidi ya miaka mia moja Kanisa likaelekeza nguvu zake katika katika kuwatayarisha raia ambao wengi wao walikuwa Wakristo, watakaokuwa watiifu kwa Kanisa na serikali. Ni katika mtandao huu ndiyo Wakristo wanaimiliki serikali na Chama Cha Mapinduzi na kuiamrisha ifanye linavyopenda Kanisa, wakati Waislam na Uislam ukifanywa kama vitu visivyokuwa na maana yoyote. Hadi kufikia mwaka wa 1960 Kanisa likawa taasisi kubwa inayomiliki mamilioni ya dola ya misaada inayopokelewa kutoka wahisani na wafadhili walioko katika ulimwengu wa Kikristo. Kanisa sasa hivi linahodhi mahospitali, misururu ya ndege binafsi, viwanja vya ndege, makampuni ya uchapaji na mitambo ya kupiga chapa, stesheni za radio, tv na magazeti. Kanisa limekuwa na nguvu na udhibiti wa mambo kiasi kwamba wakati mwingine watendaji, hasa Wakristo katika serikali na ndani ya chama tawala CCM hawajui utii wao upo kwa nani, serikalini au katika Kanisa? Ni katika kuchanganyikiwa huku kwa watendaji wa serikali kuhusu uhusiano wao na Kanisa na serikali ndiko kulikoamsha kutoaminiana kati ya Waislam na serikali mara tu baada ya uhuru kupatikana. Serikali ikaonekana kama moja ya taasisi za Kanisa na Waislam wakiwa ni watazamaji tu. Mara baada ya uhuru Kanisa likaangalia nafasi yake na serikali mpya iliyokuwa madarakani. Wakati wa kudai uhuru Kanisa lilijiweka mbali na siasa na ikaonekana kuwa Kanisa lilikuwa likiheshima ule mpaka kati ya dini na siasa. Wakati ule mgongano kati ya Kanisa na serikali haukupata kusikika hata kidogo. Baada ya uhuru kupatikana tu na serikali ikawa mikononi mwa wananchi, Kanisa likaanza kusikika likisema kuwa lina haki na wajibu kuwa na ushawishi ndani ya serikali, kuikosoa serikali na kuingooza pale inapoona serikali haifanyi mambo sawa kwa matarajio yake. Katika msimamo huu mpya, Kanisa likajipa fursa ya kuwa msemaji wa watu. Huu ulikuwa ni mwelekeo mpya katika mambo ya siasa na utawala. Katika Uislam siasa na dini ni kitu kimoja. Vitu hivi viwili havitenganishwi. Lakini mwaka wa 1955 wakati wa siku za mwanzo kabisa za TANU, Waislam katika TANU walivyoweza kukiongoza chama katika misingi ya kisekula na utaifa ili kulinda umoja wa wananchi. Kutochanganya dini na siasa ikawa moja ya maadili makuu ya TANU. Kuanzia hapa ndipo sasa tunaweza kuelewa mapambano kati ya Waislam kwa upande mmoja na serikali na Wakristo kwa upande wa pili yalivyokuja kigubika Tanzania mara baada ya uhuru. (Inatoka katika kita bu “Maisha na Nyakati za Abduliwahid Sykes…”na Mohamed Said, Phoenix Publishers, Nairobi 2002)

Source: Trendinface

The Last Ten Days of Ramadan

It was the Habit of the prophet during the last ten nights of Ramadan to increase worship. He used to spend the whole night in worship and encouraged his family to do the same, according to their ability, and he kept away from his wives. Aisha, the wife of the prophet, said "when the last ten nights of Ramadan started the prophet kept away from his wives and spent the whole night worshipping and encouraging his family to do the same.

Lailat el Qadr, or The Night of Power, is one of the nights in the last ten nights of Ramadan and this night is a blessed night. God made it honoured and better than a thousand months. This is because the Holy Quran began to be revealed on this night and it is said in the Holy Quran "in the name of God, most gracious, most merciful, we have revealed this (message) in the night of power. The night of power is better than a thousand months. Therein comes down angels and the spirits descend by the leave of their Lord upon command until the rising of the dawn.

Whoever, spends this blessed night in worship, his previous sins will be forgiven, for the prophet (peace be upon him) said "whoever fasts the month of Ramadan for the belief in, and sake of God, his previous sins will be forgiven and whoever spends the night of power (Lailat al Qadr) praying for belief and for the sake of God, his previous sins will be forgiven".

A large number of the traditions of the prophet encourage the Muslims to believe that the Night of Power is one of the last seven nights of the month. But some traditions make others think that it is one of the last ten nights of the month. Other traditions again, give us to be that it is one of the odd numbered nights of the last ten nights.

One of the above traditions comes from Ibn Umar, who said "A number of the companions of the prophet (peace be upon him) has visions regarding Lailat al Qadr and, according to these visions, it is during the last seven nights of Ramadan. When their visions were related to the prophet (peace be upon him) he said "I see your visions agree that the Night of Power will be during the last seven nights. Whoever wants to look for it he should look on one of these nights".

Aisha, the wife of the prophet, related that the prophet (peace be upon him) looked for the Night of Power on the odd numbered nights within the last ten days of Ramadan, whereas Abu Sa'id al Khudr (may God be pleased with him) " God's Messenger stayed in the mosque for worship (takafa) during the middle ten nights of Ramadan in order to find out the night of power.

This was before it has been shown to him. At the end of this period he request that his tent should be taken down. His request was carried out, but afterwards he knew from God that the night of power would during the last ten nights of the Ramadan. So he asked for his tent to set up again and it was done.

Then he came out to the people and said "O people, God has revealed to me when the night of power will be, and I have come out to inform you. At the same moment two men came to me complaining about each other and with them came Satan. So I have forgotten the exact night. But look for it during the last ten nights of Ramadan, particularly the ninth, seventh, or fifth before the end".

Abu Nadra said " I told Abu Sa'id that he knows numbers better we do". Abu Sa'id agreed, saying "yes, we are more fitted in reckoning than you are". Then Abu Nadra asked "what does the ninth, seventh or fifth mean?" Abu Sa'id answered "it will be the night following by the 21st, the 23rd and 25th".

Therefore Muslim scholars have different opinions regarding the exact date of the night of power. Some look for it on the night of the 23rd and some on the night of the 27th. This latter is the choice of the majority, but the reason is not known for sure.

This uncertainty is a good thing because if people knew exactly which was the night of power they would stop their worship before and after that night, therefore it has been hidden so as to give as opportunity for the people to have more blessing of worship and to follow the ways of the prophet (peace be upon him).

It has been related that some of the prophet's companion confirmed it as being the night of the 27th, as Mu'awia said. And also it has been related that a man named Zirr Ibn Hwbaish said " I have told Ubiyy Ibn Ka'b " your brother Ibn Mas'ud says whoever spends the nights of the whole year for worship will certainly not miss the night of power".

Ubiyya replied "May the mercy of God come to Ibn Mas'ud. He said this because his approval of teaching people to increase their activity of worship, even though Ibn Mas'ud certainly knew the night of power was in the month of Ramadan and its was one of the last ten nights of Ramadan and that it was the night of the 27th.

Then Ubiyya swore by God confirming that it was the night of the 27th. "When I asked on what ground do you state that, Abu Mondhir?", he replied " By the indication of which God's Messenger informed us, thatthe sun rises on that day without rays".

This what Muslim scholars think about the Night of Power. And it is to be hoped that God will guide all and grant us the blessing of this month and this night.

ZAKAT AL- FITIR

At the end of the fasting there is payable a kind of zakat connected with that month and this we call zakat al-fitr. It has to be paid before the Id prayer and is an obligatory payment upon every Muslim, male and female, young and old, freeman or slave, if there is any, and it is the master who is responsible for payment in respect of his servant or his slave.

It is obvious that poor people are exempted from such payment and the head of the family will be responsible for payment on behalf of his wife, children and servant and all those who are under his care. This is because of what is related by Ibn Abbas " At the end of Ramadan bring forth the sadaqa relating to your fast.

God's Messenger prescribed the sadaqa as a Sa' of dry dates or barely or a Sa' of wheat payable by every freeman or slave, male or female, young or old " and also what is related by Ibn Umar who said "God's Messenger prescribed as a Zakat payable by slave and freeman, young or old on breaking the fast of Ramadan as a Sa' of dried dates or a Sa' of barely and gave command that this should be paid before the people went out to pray".

As the need of people now-a-days is more for money, with to buy for themselves and their children what they want, it is permitted that this Zakat be paid in cash, particularly in a country like England. The amount to paid for each person is nearly 30p (thirty pence) but it may be that, in the future, this amount will be increased because of the continued rise in the cost of things.

The aim of prescribing this Zakat at this particular time is to help needy people to get what they and their families need on Id day, so that they can share with the other members of the society their happiness and pleasure, and as a sign of co-operation and unity among all of them.

What I really want to say to my Brothers about their duty during Ramadan according to the guidance of our prophet (peace be upon him)is that I hope they will benefit from it and it will be beneficial in connection with their religious activities.

The Search of a Middle Ground for Capitalism

By Salihu Mahmud, 8 August 2012

Ever since the Western economic model of Capitalism went into meltdown in 2008, plunging the world economy into a rollercoaster of crises, accusations and counter-accusations have been flying around.

Europe repeatedly blamed the US for starting it. At the recent G20 summit in Mexico the European Community President José Manuel Barroso reemphasised it in response to a question: "This crisis was not originated in Europe ... seeing as you mention North America, this crisis originated in North America and much of our financial sector was contaminated by, how can I put it, unorthodox practices, from some sectors of the financial market."

What is very clear is that greedy financial institutions ran riot over the economy while politicians beholden to corporate interests looked the other way or aided and abetted with generous bailouts to banks from public funds in the name of saving the economy.

If we step back a few decades we find that the failure of the command economy through the demise of Communism in 1989 was trumpeted as the triumph of Capitalism and the market economy.

Francis Fukuyama is famous for declaring it the 'end of history'. Nineteen years later this assertion rings hollow and is being assailed by the inexorable flow of history itself.

In 2008 the market economy experienced the equivalent of a cardiac arrest accompanied by multiple strokes, which it has not been able to recover from.

Western economies remain sluggish and anaemic and several attempts to jump-start them to life have failed.

US type 'quantitative easing' did not relieve the dire situation nor did European style austerity measures, which only succeed in fostering deep social unrest. The quake shaking the foundation of western economies transcends the typical boom-bust phases associated with Capitalism.

Jeffrey Sachs, a famed macroeconomist, noted: "We are not facing a short-term business cycle downturn, but the working out of long-term social, political, and economic trends."

Unsurprisingly the crises have prompted revisionist tendencies and reassessments of the suitability of the untamed market model to guarantee economic wellbeing, stability and overall happiness of society.

The Capitalist model oscillates between two sides; the believers in a self-regulating economy through pure market forces and the elimination of government control - or interference as they see it.

Leaders like Margaret Thatcher and Reagan famously championed this view. The other side advocate a mixed economy where active government supervision of the economy tempers market forces, this is the Keynesian approach. Renowned economists Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman and Jeffrey Sachs are contemporary proponents of this view.

The Keynesian view had greater traction following the Great Depression because of active state involvement in rebuilding failed Western economies.

It is important to note that government economic leadership was necessary in the West at the time considering the Communist bloc posed an existential threat to Western Capitalism.

Socialism appealed to the downtrodden masses of the West with its illusory promises of utopia. The steady encroachment of the Soviet model played a part in persuading Western governments to adopt mixed style economics to safeguard against the ideological propaganda of Communism.

Once again, Western economies lie in tatters and the pendulum is swinging back in favour of the mixed economic model. Politicians, policy makers and economic thinkers are hypnotized and trapped by this oscillation, unable to snap out of it.

In the 1920's free market policies drove Western economies into the Great Depression; then in the 1930's state control and financial regulations were imposed to restore balance through policies like Franklin D. Roosevelt's 'New Deal'.

Reaganomics and Thatcherism followed in the 1980's unleashing free market forces through massive deregulation of key industries, tax cuts for the rich, rolling back spending on public programs like social care and outsourcing government responsibility to the private sector.

This trend accelerated after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1989 partly due to the absence of an ideological challenger to the dominant Capitalist model, which eventually led to the messy 2008 crash we are still experiencing.

Jeffrey Sachs stated the following: "During the 1980s and onward, the instruments of federal power were increasingly handed over to vested corporate interests to be used for private advantage. The new corporatocracy was underway. And the economy, guided by narrow interests, quickly became divided, unstable, and ultimately vulnerable to the kind of collapse that ensued in 2008."

As bruised and battered governments reach for the levers of state regulation once more the feeling of déjà vu is inescapable.

The proposal of a mixed economy is an inherent recognition of the failure of Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' and Capitalism itself, which results in social defragmentation, economic imbalance and deficits of political accountability, features Western societies are increasingly characterized with. Enforcing government restrictions and regulations to reel in corporate greed is a palliative solution that simply prolongs the pain of Capitalism.

A closer look at the mixed economy model reveals the same principles that make the free market economy regularly implode - deregulation, financial speculation and privatisation of public wealth - underpin it.

These are issues that arise from that pillar of western economic thinking - freedom of ownership. The preachers of the mixed message do not question this tenet; all concur it is indubitable.

Therein lies the problem. It erodes the sense of social responsibility and nurtures a community that focuses on producing wealth rather than distributing it. It promotes and raises self-interest as the sole motivator for human interactions causing addiction with instant gratification and immediate rewards.

Relationships among people become established on personal benefit to the exclusion of all other drivers like accountability that contribute to building a stable and just society.

The exit strategy from this circle of pain is a new way of thinking and approach to economy, a nouveau economic model with a different set of principles and viewpoint altogether. Until the issue facing the West and the world at large is understood in this light we will continue on this rollercoaster to ruin.

An alternative viewpoint of economy is the Islamic perspective that bases man's motivations on his relationship with his Creator first, which then serves to guide him in all his endeavours.

In this manner man is driven by his obedience to his Creator while striving to achieve material progression in life affairs. The Islamic economic policy focuses on satisfying all basic human needs rather than just elevating the overall wealth (GDP) of the nation without consideration of individual requirements.

Furthermore, the classification of property, the manner of its acquisition, utilisation and disposal are all set in clear guidelines.

This prevents the 'free for all' mindset inculcated by the market economy that gambled with people's legitimate needs for home ownership, creating the housing problem and the subprime bubble effect.

Home ownership is a citizen right embedded in the Islamic economy by the rules of Shari'ah and not a financial instrument to enrich corporate interests. Trade and markets are organised by the Shari'ah rules that encourage seeking profit but prohibit speculation and stock trading.

Islam's monetary policy that is based on the bi-metallic standard of gold/silver protects the economy from rampant inflation and fiscal crisis. When coupled with the strong prohibition of interest and financial speculation, it leads to a stable real economy.

This is a brief insight into the manner of laying down a whole new approach to economy provided by Islam and a way forward for humanity.

Mahmud wrote from Gwarimpa, Abuja.

Rwanda - Violator or Victim?

BY ALBERT RUDATSIMBURWA, KIGALI, 6 AUGUST 2012

OPINION

Steve Hege in not alone in holding fringe views on Rwanda, the FDLR or post-genocide politics. Think of Peter Erlinder, the sacked law professor from Minnesota who thinks that the 1994 genocide was not really a genocide at all. Or, there is Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch, whose frothing hatred of Paul Kagame is rarely far from the surface.

But Hege is not some professor in a sleepy college town where he gets to peddle his oddball theories to unsuspecting or bemused students. Nor is he a lobbyist or cable news pundit who drives up the ratings with table-thumping polemics.

Hege, an appointee of the UN Security Council, is coordinator of the Group of Experts on the DRC and co-author of a recent addendum placing blame for the mess in the east of that country at Rwanda's door. In his hands, he has the power to pass judgment on entire governments with the authority of the UN and the international community backing him. This is surely not a job for an ideological warrior.

And yet Hege is exactly that.

'Understanding the FDLR'

In 2009, while working as an associate to an organization called Peace Appeal Foundation, Hege wrote a fact sheet entitled 'Understanding the FDLR' in which he commented specifically on the genocidal forces who escaped into then-Zaire after killing a million of their fellow Rwandans in 1994.

He writes: "Consistently linked to the Rwandan genocide of 1994, the FDLR are better understood in relation to the massive revenge killings of Hutu refugees in the eastern Congo from 1996 to 1999."

Got that? The FDLR are not perpetrators, but victims, of violent atrocities. This is textbook revisionism. Black is white. Up is down. Victim is violator.

Later in the same document, Hege leaves nothing to the imagination when it comes to his views of modern Rwanda. It reads: "Economic and political power remains resoundingly concentrated in the hands of the Ugandan Tutsi elite from the RPF."

Any survivor (or student) of the genocide will grimace at such loaded language. It was this notion of a 'foreign invading force' - Ugandan Tutsi elite - that served as rhetorical ammunition for the genocide itself. This slur is not accidental, but premeditated and profoundly chilling.

Racialized views

Unfortunately, Hege's disturbing and highly racialized views do not stop there. In an issues paper he authored in 2010, he wrote this about Congolese people of Rwandan descent: "...it is not enough that they just say that they are Congolese. They must demonstrate that they truly are just that by prioritizing their relationships with their fellow Congolese citizens over the economic and territorial interests of Rwanda."

These words are deeply disquieting. To Hege's mind, "they" - Rwandophone communities in the Kivus - must clear a higher bar of citizenship than their fellow Congolese. This offensive idea is central to racist ideology everywhere, whether in the form of anti-Semitism or the persecution of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Given the diversity of human opinion, it is not altogether surprising that, even in 2012, Hege and others cling to such views. What is alarming, however, is that Hege was decreed an 'expert' by the UN in a region where such views wield horrifying consequences.

Since the UN Security Council has repeatedly and unanimously endorsed a view of the FDLR at stark odds with Hege's, why appoint him to such a sensitive post? He was certainly telegraphing his punches: in the FDLR fact sheet, he issued what now reads like a threat. He wrote: "The FDLR would rather wait for political negotiations when international opinion eventually sours on the Rwandan regime."

Was this strongly anti-Rwanda stance known to the UNSC? If so, was the appointment an act of provocation, aimed at elevating the FDLR and reducing Rwanda influence? If the Security Council was unaware of Hege's ideological predilections, how on earth did their vetting process fail so miserably?

Whatever the answers, the questions must be asked.

A clumsy UN

The UN's capitulation in the face of genocide, followed by the UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the DR Congo (MONUSCO) and its dozen years of failure, has already left the UN's reputation in tatters throughout the Great Lakes region. This can only make matters worse.

The Rwandan government would be justified in calling for Hege's sacking and for an investigation into how he was appointed in the first place given this paper trail. It will confirm the deeply entrenched perception that the UN is recklessly clumsy when it comes to this part of the world, and that their attempts to save us are almost always bound to make things worse.

Everyone is entitled to his own point of view. But Hege is not everyone - nor is he just anyone - and that is the problem. Along with his colleagues, he has inflicted significant damage on Rwanda's international standing. The litany of charges he compiled has directly led to the suspension or freezing of aid from the Netherlands, Germany, the UK and elsewhere. This is a high-stakes ideological vendetta - surely undeserving of the UN's stamp of approval.

• Albert Rudatsimburwa is senior editor at the radio station Contact FM.

Respecting the Presidency, Our Responsibility

By Whigham Robert Dundas, 3 August 2012

opinion

Jayee University College — The sudden demise of the late President Prof. John Evans Attah Mills shocked the entire country and across the globe, as several people from far and near expressed the untimely death of our great leader as a loss not only to the nation, but the entire world, due to his immense contribution towards most of the aspects of human endeavors.

Undoubtedly, he was the only Ghanaian President who received several insults from a section of the Ghanaian public. On no account did he react to the insults he received from the people, who did not believe in his ideologies and principles.

Ironically, after his death, he is now seen as a hero, a good father, a selfless leader, an incorruptible person and what have you. I wondered and asked myself: Is he not the same person some Ghanaians insulted when he was alive? Why did we not say all those good things about him when he lived?

Must the practice of democracy which campaigns for freedom of speech be used as a platform to insult our President, who we referred to as the first gentleman of the land? If indeed we claim we are the beacon of hope for Africa when it comes to the practice of democracy, which means we have gone far, why then must we subject our leader to the highest level of insults all in the name of politics?

Then I want to put it on record that we have not gone far because we do not honour our leaders, but wait till their death before saying good things about them in the form of tributes. This is hypocritical and those behind it must bow down their heads in shame. Showing respect to our President and every person should be a responsibility. Our leaders, especially politicians, must be seen to spear-head this particular course.

The office of the President, believe me or not, is the highest and the biggest office as far as this country is concerned. We should always endeavor to pay respect to the person we have elected to occupy that position, and on no account must this highest office on the land be brought into disrepute and be subjected to various insults.

If a son does not respect his own father, will he be angry when another person insults his father? Politicians must be blamed for all the insults that we hear almost all the time on our airwaves, and they should immediately put a stop to this negative behaviour.

It is worrying whenever we hear insults from the people we respect a lot, make me ask where we are heading to as a people. Why must we then allow politics to divide us and wish that the death of our President must unify us?

This is something we should have done long ago, knowing the fact that the general election is just around the corner, and we need unity and peace to prevail in such difficult times, where most African countries have suffered to achieve such a feat, in terms of conducting elections.

It is a known secret that people are afraid to insult the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II in secret, let alone in public, why then must we not give the same prominence, in terms of respect to our President.

Why must we spend so hugely to organise a general election to elect our President through universal adult suffrage, whiles the office itself is not respected? We could have heard many insults today if the President was to be living. Many of us have seen the kind of hypocrisy and selfish interest which are endowed in a section of the Ghanaian populace.

Even though the cause of the death of our President is not known, many believe he was a worried person. Myjoyonline.com revealed that the late President Mills was a worried person, due to certain key national issues. This was contained in a secret conversation between our late President and the Asantehene, which was held in a secret location in Accra, where the former poured his heart out about the piercing key national issues before he (Asantehene) enplaned to Israel to woo investors to Ghana, some few days ago.

Even though the Asantehene Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, according to the source, did not reveal such key national issues that were discussed, we are bound to know such key issues which were worrying our leader.

In a country where unemployment is very high and where we have associations like the Association of Unemployed Graduates, coupled with the highest level of insults, together with the list of judgment debts which dominate the news everyday, and a lot more issues that affected the Presidency. The President was indeed a worried person.

If the late President is today seen as a hero, why did we not honour him long ago? So, what is the essence of the various tributes that have been poured out after his death? If the late President contributed immensely towards the development of sports in the country, why did we not name the National Hockey Pitch in Accra after him, when he was alive and kicking, but wait after his demise?

This was long over due. We will never know what we have until we lose it. These are all lessons we as a people must learn from and always make things right and put an immediate end to all the insults in the name of politics.

As the time draws near for Ghanaians to go to the polls, I edge every individual to know that its peace that we all want and nothing else. Politicians should also exhibit a high sense of professionalism in the discharge of their duties and charge their followers to remain calm at all times. We should always endeavour to honor our leaders when they are alive and not after they are no more.

Whigham Robert Dundas Jayee University College.

John Mnyika juu ya Kuvunjwa Kamati ya Kudumu ya Bunge ya Nishati na Madini

Kufuatia uamuzi wa Spika wa Bunge jana jumamosi tarehe 28 Julai 2012 kukubali kuvunja Kamati ya Kudumu ya Bunge ya Nishati na Madini nimetakiwa kutoa maoni yangu kuhusu uamuzi husika kwa nafasi yangu ya Waziri Kivuli wa Nishati na Madini na mbunge:

Kwa maoni yangu uamuzi huo ni sahihi lakini umechelewa na pekee hauwezi kurejesha heshima ya bunge kwa ukamilifu wala hautaweza kushughulikia uzembe na udhaifu ulioko kwenye bunge na kwenye serikali ikiwa hautaambana na hatua nyingine za ziada na za haraka.Kwa upande mwingine, uamuzi huo umedhihirisha nilichokisema kwa nyakati mbalimbali kuhusu uzembe wa kibunge pamoja na udhaifu wa serikali.

Ukiondoa tuhuma za wabunge wanaodaiwa kupokea rushwa ama kuwa na maslahi ya kifedha kwenye wizara, taasisi au mashirika wanayoyasimamia kwenye kamati mbalimbali, heshima ya bunge imeathiriwa vile vile na maamuzi mathalani uamuzi wa kuchaguliwa kwa mtuhumiwa wa ufisadi wa Rada Mbunge Andrew Chenge kuwa mwenyekiti wa Kamati ya Fedha na Uchumi.

Hivyo hatua zaidi zichukuliwe ikiwa ni pamoja na kuvunja na kamati zenye wajumbe waliotuhumiwa na pia kufanya mabadiliko makubwa kwenye wajumbe wa kamati mbalimbali za kudumu za bunge ili kupunguza maslahi ya kifedha ama tuhuma za rushwa miongoni mwa wajumbe wa kamati. Aidha Kamati ya Haki, Maadili na Madaraka ya Bunge imalize kazi yake kwa dharura ili majina ya wahusika yatajwe ndani ya bunge na bunge lijadili kupitisha maazimio ya hatua za ziada za kuchukuliwa na vyombo huru vya kiuchunguzi na hatimaye watakaothibitika kuvunja sheria wafikishwe mahakamani. Pamoja na hatua hizo, Kamati za Vyama nazo zichukue hatua kwa wabunge wake watakaotajwa ili kudumisha misingi ya uadilifu na uwajibikaji kwa maslahi ya umma.
Hata baada ya hatua hizo, izingatiwe kuwa Bunge litaweza kujinasua kwenye uzembe ikiwa litatimiza kikamilifu wajibu wake wa kuisimamia serikali kwa mujibu wa ibara ya 63 kuondoa udhaifu wa serikali kwenye sekta ya nishati na sekta nyingine muhimu za taifa kwa kuhakikisha maazimio yote ya bunge yanatekelezwa kwa ukamilifu na kwa haraka kama nilivyoeleza kwenye maoni ya kambi rasmi ya upinzani bungeni tarehe 15 Julai 2011 na tarehe 27 Julai 2012.

Nilisema bungeni kwamba “Naamini iwapo maazimio ya Bunge juu ya Mkataba baina ya TANESCO na Kampuni ya Richmond Development Company LLC yangetekelezwa yote na kwa wakati toka mwaka 2008, maazimio ya bunge juu ya uendeshaji wa sekta ndogo ya gesi asili ya mwaka 2011 yangezingatiwa yote na kwa haraka, maazimio kuhusu uhalali wa utaratibu wa Wizara ya Nishati na Madini kuchangisha fedha kwa ajili ya kupitisha bajeti bungeni ya mwaka 2011 yangechukuliwa kwa uzito unaostahili; taifa lingeepushwa kurudia mijadala ile ile kuhusu Wizara hii hii mara kwa mara”.

Mathalani, Waziri wa Nishati na Madini ameeleza bungeni tarehe 28 Julai 2012 kuwa wapo wabunge wanaotuhumiwa kufanya biashara zenye kulihujumu Shirika la Umeme (TANESCO) na Spika wa Bunge akahitimisha kuwa Kamati ya Haki, Maadili na Madaraka ya Bunge itachunguza tuhuma husika na pia kwamba inakusudiwa kutungwa kwa Kanuni za Maadili (Code of Conduct) ili kudhibiti hali hiyo.

Hata hivyo, Serikali na Uongozi wa Bunge kwa pamoja wamesahau kuwa mwaka 2008 baada ya Kashfa ya Richmond iliazimiwa katika Azimio Na. 11, kwamba “Sheria ya Maadili ya Viongozi wa Umma ya Mwaka 1995 (The Public Leadership Code of Ethics Act), ifanyiwe marekebisho makubwa ili kudhibiti utaratibu unaoonekana wa kawaida sasa wa Viongozi Waandamizi wenye dhamana ya kisiasa kuendelea na biashara zao binafsi wakiwa madarakani, jambo ambalo lina mgongano wa kimaslahi. Serikali ianze rasmi maandalizi ya majadiliano ya kina kuhusu suala hili ndani na nje ya Bunge kwa kuwashirikisha wadau mbalimbali.”

Bunge lilitaarifiwa Februari 2010 kuhusu utekelezaji wa Serikali kwamba kikundi kazi (Task Force) kiliundwa ambacho kiliandaa waraka wenye mapendekezo ya kurekebisha Sheria ya Maadili ya Viongozi wa Umma, (Sura 398) ambao ulikuwa katika ngazi ya kujadiliwa na Kamati ya Makatibu Wakuu (IMTC). Aidha, Bunge lilielezwa kuwa serikali ilitarajia kuwasilisha muswada husika katika mkutano wa kumi na tisa wa Bunge la tisa. Muswada huo haukupitishwa katika Bunge la tisa kama ilivyoshauriwa na kamati na mpaka kutokana na uzembe na udhaifu azimio hilo halijatekelezwa na tuhuma nyingine zimeendelea kuibuka.

Aidha, kumetolewa madai ya baadhi ya wabunge kupokea ama kudai rushwa suala ambalo nalo Spika wa Bunge ametoa uamuzi kuwa litashughulikiwa na Kamati ya Haki, Maadili na Madaraka ya Bunge. Lakini Serikali na Uongozi wa Bunge kwa pamoja wamesahau kwamba hii si mara ya kwanza kwa tuhuma za namna hiyo kutolewa juu ya baadhi ya wabunge wa kamati mbalimbali za bunge.

Hata hivyo, kwa sababu ya kutochukua hatua kwa haraka na kwa ukamilifu tuhuma kama hizo zitaendelea kujirudia hata baada ya kuvunjwa kwa kamati ya bunge ya nishati na madini. Izingatiwe kwamba madai ya rushwa kutolewa kwa wabunge yaliwahi kujitokeza kuhusu Kamati ya Nishati na Madini na binafsi nilitoa ushuhuda kwa Ofisi ya Mkaguzi Mkuu wa Hesabu za Serikali (CAG) mwaka 2011, na nikatoa ushuhuda tena kwa Kamati Teule ya Bunge iliyochunguza uhalali wa utaratibu wa Wizara ya Nishati na Madini kuchangisha fedha kwa ajili ya kupitisha bajeti bungeni mwaka 2011 kuwa yamekuwepo matukio ya kushawishi wabunge kwa rushwa hata hivyo hatua hazikuchukuliwa ama kuvunja kamati zilizotajwa au kuwachukulia hatua wahusika.

Suala hili likatajwa tena na Mbunge wa Kigoma Kaskazini David Kafulila kuhusu Kamati ya Hesabu za Serikali za Mitaa na likatajwa tena na Kiongozi wa Upinzani Freeman Mbowe na Mbunge wa Kyela Dr Harrison Mwakyembe kuhusu uchaguzi wa Afrika Mashariki lakini hatua hazikuchukuliwa kuchunguza wabunge husika na kuchukua hatua. Iwapo maazimio kuhusu uhalali wa utaratibu wa Wizara ya Nishati na Madini kuchangisha fedha kwa ajili ya kupitisha bajeti bungeni ya mwaka 2011 (Maarufu kama Sakata la Jairo), yangetekelezwa na wahusika wangechukuliwa hatua ingejenga nidhamu pia kwa watendaji wa wizara na mashirika ya umma kuhusu rushwa na matumizi mabaya ya fedha za umma yenye kulenga kuwaathiri wabunge kwa rushwa na maslahi mengine ya kifedha.

Katika hali inayoonyeha kwamba Serikali bado haioni uharaka na ulazima wa kuchukua hatua, wakati bunge lilipokaa kama kamati tarehe 28 Julai 2012 kupitisha bajeti ya Wizara ya Nishati na Madini nilitaka ufafanuzi kutoka kwa Waziri wa Nishati na Madini kuhusu utekelezaji wa maazimio hayo ambayo mpaka sasa hakuna taarifa ya utekelezaji iliyowasilishwa bungeni toka yapitishwe mwezi Novemba mwaka 2011; lakini Waziri akajibu tu kwamba hawezi kufanyia kazi taarifa za magazetini, bila kujali kwamba nilichouliza hakihusu taarifa za magazetini bali maazimio ya bunge baada ya kazi iliyofanywa na Mkaguzi Mkuu wa Hesabu za Serikali na ikarudiwa tena na Kamati Teule ya Bunge ambayo ilihoji wahusika na kupata pia vielelezo.

Kwa hiyo, ni muhimu Serikali na Uongozi wa Bunge ukarejea kwenye Hotuba niliyowasilisha bungeni na kuchukua hatua kwa usimamizi wa Rais, Waziri Mkuu na Spika wa Bunge juu ya masuala yote niliyoyaeleza. Pamoja na kutaja ushawishi uliokuwa ukifanywa kwa wabunge kuhusu suala la ununuzi wa mafuta ya IPTL, na ufisadi ndani ya TANESCO nilieleza pia masuala mengine makubwa kwenye nishati na madini yenye kuhusu mabilioni ya shilingi kwenye mikataba mikubwa ya umeme, madini, mafuta na gesi asili pamoja na hatua za mabadiliko ya kimfumo zinazopaswa kuchukuliwa.

Nimetoa maoni hayaleo jumapili tarehe 29 Julai 2012:

John Mnyika (Mb)

Waziri Kivuli wa Nishati na Madini

Mambo Yanayohitaji kuzingatiwa kwenye Mchakato wa Katiba Mpya

MAMBO YA MSINGI KATIKA KATIBA YA JAMHURI YA MUUNGANO WA TANZANIA YA 1977

Muhtasari
1. JAMHURI YA MUUNGANO NA UTAIFA
2. MGAWANYO WA MAMLAKA
a. Mamlaka Tatu
i. Mamlaka ya Mambo ya Muungano
ii. Mamlaka ya Mambo yasiyo ya Muungano ya Zanzibar
iii. Mamlaka ya Mambo yasiyo ya Muungano ya Tanzania Bara
3. SERIKALI MBILI; MUUNDO WAKE
4. UENDESHAJI WA MAMLAKA TATU
a. Maamuzi ya Kisera
b. Utungaji Sheria
c. Usimamizi na Uendeshaji;
i. Fedha na Bajeti
ii. Utawala;

5. UTATUZI WA MIGOGORO YA MUUNGANO

SEHEMU YA PILI- UFAFANUZI NA MASUALI MUHIMU
JAMHURI YA MUUNGANO NA UTAIFA
Ibara ya 1 ya Katiba inatamka; “Tanzania ni Nchi Moja na ni Jamhuri ya Muungano…”
Ibara inaweka bayana kuwa Jamhuri ya Muungano ni Taifa moja lenye mfumo wa Jamhuri iliyoundwa kwa mfumo wa Muungano. Ibara hii imeandikwa sawa na vifungu vya Katiba vya nchi ambazo hazina Muungano kama vile Kenya, Uganda na Uturuki. Nchi nyingi zenye Muungano imara kama vile Switzerland na hata Urusi Katiba inaeleza bayana kuwa Taifa hilo ni Muungano wa Nchi au Washirika gani. Aidha hueleza hadhi ya Washirika hao ndani ya Muungano au Shirikisho hilo.
Masuali muhimu:
a. Kwa vile Taifa limeundwa kwa mfumo wa Muungano, je washirika wa Muungano huo ni wapi na ni wangapi;
b. Nini hatma ya washirika hao baada ya kuungana; wapo au hawapo tena (Angalia uhusiano wa suala hili Orodha ya Pili, Jadweli la Kwanza kuhusu kuendelea kuwepo kwa Sheria ya Muungano ya 1964 na pia Orodha ya Pili hasa vipengele vya 1,2 na 3);
c. Nini hadhi ya Washirika wa Muungano baada ya kuungana (Angalia mfano wa Katiba za Uswizi, Urusi, Marekani )

Kukosekana kwa ufafanuzi huu kumepelekea mkanganyiko mkubwa ndani ya Katiba kuhusu mipaka ya baadhi ya mambo. Mifano michache ni kama ifuatavyo:
a). Ibara ya 5 inayotoa haki ya kupiga kura utaofanyika Tanzania. Ibara hii inatoa picha kuwa ibara hiyo inatumika kwa uchaguzi wowote utaofanyika katika Jamhuri ya Muungano wakati ukweli ni kuwa Ibara hiyo inatumika kwa uchaguzi wa Muungano tu kwa Zanzibar .
b). Ibara ya 108 inaanzisha Mahkama Kuu ya Jamhuri ya Muungano. Kwanza hii inatafautiana na Ibara ya 4(2) ambayo inaeleza kuwepo Mahkama ya Serikali ya Jamhuri ya Muungano. Pili, Mahkama Kuu si miongoni mwa mambo ya Muungano na hivyo hakuna Mahkama Kuu ya Jamhuri ya Muungano; zipo Mahakama Kuu ya Zanzibar na Mahkama Kuu ya Tanzania Bara. Tatu, hili limepelekea kuchanganywa kwa Mahakama Kuu ya Tanzania Bara katika Uongozi wa Mahaka ya Rufaa jambo ambalo ni kinyume na Katiba na ni tofauti sana na mfumo uliokuwepo chini ya Jumuiya ya Afrika Mashariki ambapo Mahkama ya Rufaa ya Afrika Mashariki haikuwa ya nchi yoyote bali ya nchi zote na ilikuwa na uongozi na bajeti yake tofauti. Aidha, mkanganyiko huu umepelekea mtafaruku katika uwakilishi wa Jamhuri ya Tanzania katika taasisi za kimataifa na kikanda kwa mambo yasiyo ya Muungano.
MGAWANYO WA MAMLAKA
Ibara ya 4(3) imegawa. Mamlaka tatu ndani ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania. Mamlaka hizo ni kama zifuatavyo:
a). Mamlaka ya Mambo ya Muungano ambayo ni kwa Tanzania Bara na Zanzibar;
b). Mamlaka ya Mambo yasiyo ya Muungano kwa Zanzibar; na
c). Mambo yasiyo ya Muungano kwa Tanzania Bara
Mamlaka ya Mambo ya Muungano:
Kwa mujibu wa Ibara ya 4(3), Mambo ya Muungano ni yale yaliyotajwa katika Jadweli la Kwanza, mwishoni mwa Katiba. Kwa kawaida tumezoea kuyaita mambo hayo kuwa ni 22, lakini kwa uhakika ni haya yafuatayo:
i. Katiba ya Tanzania;
ii. Serikali ya Jamhuri ya Muungano;
iii.Mambo ya nchi za Nje;
iv.Ulinzi;
v. Usalama;
vi.Polisi
vii.Hali ya Hatari;
viii.Uraia;
ix. Uhamiaji;
x. Mikopo;
xi. Biashara za Nje;
xii. Utumishi katika Serikali ya Muungano;
xiii.Kodi ya Mapato (income tax);
xiv.Ushuru wa Forodha (custom duty);
xv. Ushuru wa Bidhaa (excise duty);
xvi.Bandari;
xvii.Usafiri wa Anga;
xviii.Posta;
xix. Simu;
xx. Sarafu na Fedha;
xxi. Mabenki;
xxii.Fedha za Kigeni;
xxiii.Leseni za Viwanda;
xxiv.Takwimu za Viwanda;
xxv. Elimu ya Juu;
xxvi.Maliasili ya Mafuta;
xxvii.Mafuta yasiyochujwa;
xxviii.Gesi Asilia;
xxix. Aina Nyengine za Mafuta;
xxx. Baraza la Taifa la Mitihani;
xxxi. Usafiri wa Anga;
xxxii.Usafirishaji wa Anga;
xxxiii.Utafiti;
xxxiv.Utabiri wa Hali ya Hewa;
xxxv. Takwimu;
xxxvi.Mahkama ya Rufaani;
xxxviii.Uandikishaji na Mambo mengineyo yanayohusu Vyama vya Siasa.

Masuala Muhimu Kuhusu Mambo ya Muungano:
a. Idadi ya Mambo ya Muungano ni mangapi.
Suala hii linatokana na sababu tatu kubwa. Kwanza, kwa kuzingatia utaratibu wa kupiga kura chini ya ibara ya 98, jee mambo yaliopo chini ya Jadweli la Pili, Orodha ya Kwanza na ya Pili nayo ni mambo ya Muungano. Pili, Ofisi ya Rais na Makamo wa Rais hazikutajwa katika Orodha ya Mambo ya Muungano, jee Ofisi hizo ni za Muungano au hapana. Tatu zipo Taasisi kama vile Tume ya Pamoja Ya Fedha hazikutajwa katika Orodha ya Mambo ya Muungano. Nne, jee Serikali ya Muungano ambayo imetajwa katika Orodha ya Mambo ya Muungano lakini ndiyo pia inayosimamia mambo ambayo si Muungano ni jambo kweli la Muungano. Tano, kwa mujibu wa Uamuzi wa Mahkama ya Rufaa katika Kesi ya Mchano Khamis na Wenzake 17, Orodha ya Mambo ya Muungano haikueleza mambo yote ya Muungano. Kwa hivyo, ni dhahiri kuwa Orodha halisi ya Mambo ya Muungano haijulikani.

b. Tafsiri ya Mambo ya Muungano
Si Katiba wala Sheria nyengine yoyote iliyotafsiri maana na mipaka ya mambo ya Muungano. Kwa mfano nini tafsiri ya elimu ya juu, Bandari, Aina nyengine za Mafuta zinajumuisha bio-fuels, Ulinzi nk.

c. Sera na Utaratibu wa Kubadili Mambo ya Muungano.
Mambo ya Muungano ndio msingi mkubwa wa Muungano. Kuongezwa au kupunguza mambo ya Muungano kunaweza kubadili dhana nzima ya Muungano. Hivyo kuwepo sera na utaratibu wa kubadili orodha ya Muungano ni muhimu sana. Kwa mfano Katiba ya Marekani inakataza kabisa Majimbo mawili kuungana kuunda Jimbo moja au Jimbo moja kugawanywa kuunda jimbo jengine, kwa sababu ya kulinda “utaifa” wa Majimbo. Katika Katiba ya Muungano kuna misingi gani ya Muungano ambayo.

d. Kukosekana Mfumo Rasmi wa Kila Mamlaka Kuitambua Mamlaka Nyengine
Hii ni kasoro kubwa sana katika Muungano na ambayo kwa bahati mbaya imejificha. Miongoni mwa athari zake ni kama zifuatazo. Kwanza, ingawa Rais wa Jamhuri ya Muungano ana mamlaka kwa mambo ya Muungano ndani ya Tanzania Bara na Zanzibar, masuala kama vile ya Sheria za jinai si suala la Muungano na hivyo kinga aliyonayo ya kutoshtakiwa ndani ya Katiba ya Muungano haiwezi kutumika Zanzibar kwa vile Zanzibar ina mamlaka na sheria zake za jinai. Suala muhimu hapa ni jee Rais wa Muungano anaweza kushtakiwa kwa kosa la jinai ndani ya Zanzibar? Suala hili kwa hali ya sasa linaweza kuonekana la kituko, lakini ni la muhimu sana. Pili, suala kama hili ni muhimu kujiuliza kwa Rais wa Zanzibar anapokuwa ndani ya Tanzania Bara. Tatu, Katiba haijaweka bayana masuala ya mashirikiano ya kimahkama hasa katika utekelezaji wa amri za Mahkama za pande mbili. Jambo pekee lililoelezwa ni upelekaji hati za Mahkama. Yapo mambo mengi ambayo kwa sababu Katiba haijaweka bayana mfumo wa Mamlaka ya upande mmoja kuitambua Mamlaka ya upande mwengine, Taifa moja limebaki kama nchi tofauti sawa na nchi nyengine ya kigeni.

Mamlaka ya Mambo Yasiyo ya Muungano Zanzibar
Ibara ya 4(3) ya Katiba ya Muungano inaleta tafsiri kuwa mambo yote ambayo hayakutajwa katika Jadweli la Kwanza sio mambo ya Muungano. Ukiachia ibara hiyo hakuna kifungu chengine chchote cha Katiba wala Sheria kinachoeleza ni yapi mambo ambayo si ya Muungano. Hivyo, mamlaka ya mambo kwa Zanzibar inasimamia mambo yale ambayo hayakutajwa katika Orodha ya Mambo ya Muungano.

Mambo Yasiyo ya Muungano Tanzania Bara
Msingi wa mambo yasiyo ya Muungano kwa Tanzania Bara msingi wake pia ni Ibara ya 4(3) ya Katiba. Ufafanuzi zaidi utafanywa katika Sehemu ya Usimamizi wa mambo yasiyo ya Muungano.

SERIKALI MBILI NA MUUNDO WAKE
Serikali ya Jamhuri ya Muungano ambayo kwa mujibu wa Ibara ya 4(2) ina dhamana ya kusimamia mambo ya Muungano na Mambo Yasiyo ya Muungano kwa Tanzania Bara, inaongozwa na Rais akisaidiwa na Makamo wa Rais! Waziri Mkuu na Mawaziri.
Kwa mujibu wa Ibara ya …. Rais huchaguliwa kwa wingi wa kura. Makamo wa Rais huchaguliwa kwa mtindo wa mgombea mwenza kwa fomula ya kuwa kama Rais atatoka Tanzania Bara, Makamo wa Rais atatoka Zanzibar na kinyume chake pia.
Waziri Mkuu, kwa mujibu wa Ibara ya 51(2), huteuliwa na Rais. Hakuna sharti la kikatiba wala kisheria linalomtaka Rais kushauriana na Makamo wa Rais katika uteuzi wa Waziri Mkuu.
Kwa mujibu wa Ibara ya 55(1) Ya Katiba, Mawaziri huteuliwa na Rais kwa kushauriana na WAZIRI MKUU sio MAKAMU WA RAIS. Rais wa Zanzibar ni Mjumbe wa Baraza la Mawaziri kwa wadhifa wake.
Hakuna ibara ya Katiba au kifungu cha Sheria kinacholazimisha Wizara za Serikali ya Muungano kuundwa kwa kuzingatia Wizara zinazosimamia mambo ya Muungano kutochanganywa na Wizara ambazo hazisimamii mambo ya Muungano.

Masuali Muhimu

a. Uhalali (legitimacy) wa Rais wa Muungano kuchaguliwa kwa wingi wa kura kwa kuzingatia tofauti ya idadi ya watu baina ya Zanzibar na Tanzania Bara;

b. Uhalali wa Rais wa Zanzibar kuwa Mjumbe tu wa Baraza la Mawaziri na sio Mwakilishi wa Zanzibar ndani ya Baraza la Mawaziri ili kuepuka kubanwa na Kanuni ya Baraza la Mawaziri ya Uwajibikaji wa pamoja
c. Nini wajibu wa kikatiba wa Makamo wa Rais katika uendeshaji wa Serikali;
d. Makamo wa Rais ni Msaidizi Mkuu wa Rais wa Muungano kuhusiana na Zanzibar kama ilivyokusudiwa na Mapatano ya Muungano? Jee ni Msaidizi Mkuu wa Rais wa Muungano kwa Mambo ya Muungano au Msaidizi Mkuu ni Waziri Mkuu?
e. Jee Mawaziri wanaotoka Zanzibar waliomo katika Baraza la Mawaziri la Serikali ya Muungano wanaiwakilisha Zanzibar au ni watumishi wa Rais wa Muungano kama walivyo Mawaziri wengine?
f. Jee kuna chombo chochote cha Kikatiba au kisheria kinacholazimisha Serikali mbili za Jamhuri ya Muungano kukutana, kushauriana na kufanya maamuzi ya pamoja kama Mamlaka mbili za kuendesha Jamhuri ya Muungano?
g. Katika mfumo wa sasa wa Serikali mbili upo uwezekano wa Serikali mbili zinazoongozwa na vyama viwili tofauti kufanya kazi kwa maelewano;
h. Jee kipo chombo cha kutatua mizozo inayoweza kujitokeza baina ya Serikali mbili?

USIMAMIZI NA UENDESHAJI WA MAMLAKA TATU ZA JAMHURI YA MUUNGANO
a. Usimamizi na Uendeshaji wa Mambo ya Muungano
Katika kila eneo ni vyema tuangalie Usimamizi na Uendeshaji katika nyanja tatu;

Sera
Sera ndio dira ya maamuzi na utekelezaji wa jambo lolote la umma. Sera za Mambo ya Muungano zinaanzishwa na Wizara husika. Kwa mfano Sera ya Mambo ya Nje bila ya shaka itaanzishwa na Wizara ya Mambo ya Nje. Baada ya taratibu za ndani uamuzi wa mwisho hutolewa na Baraza la Mawaziri. Hakuna sharti la kikatiba wala la kisheria linaloitaka Serikali ya Muungano kushauriana na kukubaliana na Serikali ya Zanzibar katika kuandaa na kupitisha Sera za Mambo ya Muungano.
Utaratibu unaotumika kwa mazoea tu na kwa baadhi ya wakati ni rasimu za Sera kutumwa na Wizara husika kwa Wizara husika ya Zanzibar ili kupata maoni ya Zanzibar. Uzoefu wa siku nyingi unaonyesha Maoni hayo ya Zanzibar si mara nyingi kuzingatiwa. Mfano mzuri ni Sera ya Mambo ya Nje ambapo Baraza la Mapinduzi liliunda Kamati ya BLM kuandaa mapendekezo ya Zanzibar ambayo hatimaye yalipitishwa na BLM lakini hayakuzingatiwa.

Sheria
Kwa mujibu wa Ibara ya 64 mamlaka ya kutunga Sheria kwa Mambo ya Muungano ni ya Bunge.
Kwa mujibu wa Ibara ya 98, Bunge linapotunga Sheria linahitaji ridhaa ya Wabunge kutoka Zanzibar kwa Mambo yaliyomo katika Orodha ya Pili ya Jadweli la Pili. Mambo hayo ambayo ni 8 si sehemu ya Mambo ya Muungano ingawa baadhi yake ni mambo muhimu sana.
Kutokana na masharti hayo ya Katiba ni wazi kuwa Sheria zote za Mambo yote ya Muungano ambayo yameorodheshwa katika Jadweli la Kwanza (Mambo 37), Sheria zake zinapitishwa kwa utaratibu wa wingi wa kura. Kwa mfano, Sheria ya Uhamiaji, Sheria ya Uraia, Sheria ya Kuanzishwa kwa TRA, Sheria za kodi na Sheria zote za Muungano zinapitishwa Bungeni kwa wingi wa kura tu. Kwa kuzingatia uwiano wa idadi ya Wabunge wa Zanzibar na Tanzania Bara, ni wazi kuwa Sheria za Mambo yote ya Muungano zinaamuliwa na upande mmoja tu wa Muungano.

Fedha na Bajeti
Ibara ya 133 ya Katiba ya Muungano inaanzisha Akaunti Maalumu ya Pamoja (Joint Finance Account). Ibara hiyo inaeleza wazi kwamba katika Akaunti hiyo, kutawekwa Mapato yote ya Muungano na Matumizi yote ya Muungano yatatoka katika Akaunti hiyo.
Ingawa Sheria ya Tume ya Pamoja ya Fedha ilipitishwa mwaka 1996, Tume ilianza kazi mwaka 2003 na kutoa Ripoti ya Mapendekezo ya kuanzisha Akaunti ya Fedha ya Pamoja na mfumo wa mgawanyo wa gharama na mapato ya Muungano mwaka 2006, bado Akaunti ya Pamoja haijaanzishwa. Suala kubwa hapa ni uhalali wa Bajeti ya Serikali ya Muungano kwa vile inakwenda kinyume na masharti ya Katiba ya Muungano.
Aidha, athari ya kutoanzishwa Akaunti ya Pamoja ni kama zifuatazo:
i) Mipaka ya Mambo ya Muungano haijulikani; kwa mfano, ingawa Bunge ni chombo kinachofanya kazi za Muungano lakini linafanya kazi kwa mambo yasiyo ya Muungano hivyo inahitajika kuweka uchambuzi wa kiasi gani ya gharama za Bunge zitoke katika Mapato ya Muungano na kiasi gani yatoke katika mapato yasiyo ya Muungano ya Tanzania Bara;
ii) Mapato ya Muungano hayawekwi bayana;
iii) Gharama za kuendesha shughuli za Muungano haziko bayana;
iv) Gharama za Mambo yasiyo ya Muungano ya Tanzania Bara hayako bayana. Aidha, haiku bayana ni kiasi gani cha mapato ya Muungano kinatumika kuendesha shughuli zisizo za Muungano kwa Tanzania Bara;
v) Stahiki au deni la kila upande kutokana na mapato na gharama za kuendesha shughuli za Muungano hazijaweza kuwekwa bayana.
Kwa madhumuni ya kujenga msingi mzuri wa Mjadala katika Mada hii sitazungumzia Uendeshaji na Usimamizi wa Mambo Yasiyo ya Muungano. Maelezo ya hapo juu yanatosha kueleza sehemu iliyobaki kuhusiana na Mambo yasiyo ya Muungano.
Utawala wa Mambo ya Muungano
Utawala wa mambo ya pamoja katika Muungano wowote ni jambo la msingi katika kuamua uimara wa Muungano huo. Utawala wa mambo ya Muungano una sehemu mbili. Kwanza ni kuhusu ushiriki wa kila upande katika uongozi na ajira za mambo ya Muungano na pili ni pahala ambapo Ofisi za mamlaka husika ya jambo la Muungano yapo. Mambo hayo mawili ni muhimu sana kwa vile inasaidia kuleta sura ya Muungano, ujuzi kwa kila upande katika masuala ya Muungano na pia kupata faida ya uwekezaji wa Serikali ambayo ni ajira kwa raia.
Katika mfumo wa Muungano wa Tanzania hakuna sharti la kikatiba, la kisheria au sharti rasmi la kisera la Utawala wa Mambo ya Muungano.
Athari ya hali hii ni kuwa uongozi, ajira na uwekezaji katika Ofisi za mamlaka za Muungano zimekuwa upande mmoja wa Muungano.
Miongoni mwa mifano hiyo ni pamoja na:
i) Makao Makuu ya Wizara zote;
ii) Makao Makuu ya Benki Kuu;
iii) Taasisi ya Kodi (TRA);
iv) Mamlaka ya Usafiri wa Anga;
v) Mamalaka ya Mawasiliano;
vi) Tume ya Pamoja ya Fedha;
vii) Uhamiaji;
viii) Tume ya Vyuo Vikuu;
ix) Mahkama ya Rufaa; na
x) Msajili wa Vyama vya Siasa
UTATUZI WA MIGOGORO
Chombo pekee kilichowekwa kutatua migogoro baina ya Serikali Mbili za Jamhuri ya Muungano ni Mahkama ya Katiba iliyoanzishwa chini ya Ibara ya 125 ambayo taratibu zake zimeelezwa chini ya Ibara ya 126, 127 na 128. Mahkama hii kama chombo cha kutatua migogoro baina ya pande mbili ina kasoro kadhaa. Miongoni mwa kasoro hizo ni:
i) Ina mamlaka kuhusiana na mgogoro unaohusu tafsiri ya Katiba ya Muungano tu;
ii) Ni lazima ianzishwe kwa makubaliano ya pande zote mbili; kwa vile Majaji wake wanateuliwa kwa idadi sawa na Serikali mbili;
iii) Uamuzi ni kwa wingi wa kura;
iv) Inaundwa endapo patakuwa na shauri la mgogoro tu na si vyenginevyo.

HITIMISHO
Katiba ya Muungano ina maeneo mengi yanayohitaji kuangaliwa kwa makini. Hata hivyo maeneo yaliyofafanuliwa katika Makala hii ni miongoni mwa maeneo muhimu ambayo yanagusa nyanja takriban zote muhimu za Muungano.

MWANASHERIA MKUU WA SERIKALI ZANZIBAR: OTHMAN MASOUD OTHMAN