THE GHOST OF THE PARLIAMENT IN A BIG DILLEMA

Januari mwaka huu, Nape Nnauye, Waziri wa Habari, Vijana, Utamaduni, Michezo na Sanaa alilieleza Bunge hatua ya kuzuia matangazo ya moja kwa moja ya chombo hicho kama ilivyokuwa awali. ">In January this year, Nape Nnauye, Minister for Information, Youth, Culture, Sports and Arts he told Parliament measures to prevent the direct advertising of the vase as before.
">Among the reasons he made is that the government has been bearing the brunt of the cost in running these ads also civil servants spend much time looking at the Assembly instead of working.
">Government measures to prevent the broadcast of direct national has sparked great debate where the subject matter in have been opposed to such action.
In the suit filed today, contains 10 complainants who are Himbuka Azizi, Perfect Mwasililwa, Rose Smoke, Penina Kiya, Andrew Picnic, Hilda Smoking, Juma Uloleulole, Kubra Manzi, Ray and Ben-Rabiu Kimbito Saanane.
The case was heard by Professor Ferdinand Tribunal, the presiding judge in the court, and another judge in the case Sakieti Kihiyo, however, was not present in court today.
The defendants in this case are Nape with Saju George, Attorney General (AG) where Abubakari Mrisho, the counsel for the defendants.
With regard to the complainants administered and Omari Peter Kibatala and saying who are advocates of the Association for Democracy and Development (Chadema).
The base case filed is asking the court to undo the decision and Nape who presented the government's statement to parliament.
Complainants asked the court to declare that citizens of the United Republic of Tanzania have a constitutional right to know the ongoing discussions in Parliament in accordance with Article 18 (B), (d) and 29 (1).
Second complainants have alleged that the government violated the constitutional right to prevent would not be because of fundamental rights of citizens to hear talk of Parliament to prevent broadcast directly.
Third, the petitioners have asked the court kuilekeza Government of the United Republic of Tanzania to restore the constitutional right of citizens to broadcast directly to Parliament.
Fourth, the complainants have claimed that the result of these ads is to prevent the denial of the rights of Tanzanians failing to supervise also pursue MPs and their conduct in Parliament.
Fifth, the complainants have argued that, because of inadequate prevention of such advertising Tanzanians and complainants have the right to be informed of the proceedings of Parliament in the national interest.
However, the defense claimed that they were too late to get informed of the charges they did not have enough time to Provides answers. Due to this, the court that the defendants iliuambia side, will answer the charges July 15 on which the case will be mentioned.

Share on Google Plus