Some of them were charged before the Committee on Justice, Ethics and Powers of Parliament. Others have been summoned and condemned without a hearing.
Others were charged and they can defend themselves, but being prevented represented by lawyers, as the rules of Parliament need to scale.
Chairman of the Justice Committee, Ethics and Powers of Parliament, is George Mkuchika, influential cadre of Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM).
Already this decision was supervised by Dr. Tulia has begun opposition inside and outside Parliament.
However, the deputy speaker did not give an opportunity to hear different arguments. Among those concerns are the following:
First, the work of the justice committee, gloves and powers of Parliament, is to examine and make recommendations on all aspects of the rights, protection and powers of Parliament.
These functions are mentioned in regulation 4 (1) (a) and (b) the additional eight permanent rules of Parliament, issue of January 2016.
Committee for Justice, Ethics and Powers of Parliament, in this case, did not meet its obligations as may be prescribed by Parliament.
Has done its work through discriminatory. Haikufungulia charges CCM MPs accused of violence in parliament that day.
According to the official records of parliament, using video clips presented before the committee, some parliamentarians of the CCM, they do seem to violence, including talk without order and without the permission of the speaker's chair.
Others have used potentially offensive language in Parliament.
Similarly, some members were conducting interviews because of suspected kutofikishwa before the committee, the chairman did not want to listen.
Even the report read me tell parliament the arguments of the other members of the committee to push all the members who appear in those records before the committee to be brought before Parliament.
Thus, the committee received instructions to investigate the conduct of the Speaker of Parliament, contrary to the Constitution, rules of Parliament and the law of the land.
Second, members of the minority were opposed to the committee to give a general warning to all members of the opposition; that in case any member of the opposition has committed another offense, he considered that it is his second offense.
This is a violation of rights and the administration of justice. Yawezakane punishment touch all members of the opposition, while others were not charged, not charged and have not previously had the opportunity to defend himself?
How can the Committee to use the words, "some MPs," but instantly ikahukumu all opposition MPs?
Neither speaker was not Face it toward additional checks against other lawmakers who appeared on the video presented before the committee. Ameishia struggle to members of only one side - the opposition.
Three, seven opposition MPs have condemned the opposite of principle 74 (3) (a) of the rules of Parliament.
Section 53 places on page 74 describes the principles of the type of offense. If an MP who accused has committed the first offense, the member shall be allowed to attend Parliament sessions exceed 10.
In addition, the code says, "if this is his second offense or more, the member shall be allowed to attend the sessions exceed 20."
Some lawmakers have tried not attending two meetings of Parliament - the National Assembly of the ongoing budget now and the next meeting of Parliament.
Neither in principle, there is no mechanism deeming the total error. There is a procedure to present detailed information for every offense and every accused and when the crime has been committed. Ilituhumu Committee in general and would comply with the requirements of the regulations.
Fourth, the deputy speaker did not consider the proposals of the few members suggested that before a decision is reached by the Parliament, it is important suspects were given an opportunity to defend themselves in front of their fellow MPs.
It's like it did in the Ninth Parliament, where Zitto was given a chance to defend himself in front of the whole House on the resolution before it reached the penalty.
It was during the saga of the contract Buzwagwi, where he was accused of telling lies Zitto parliament. Later was assumed to be called "lies" and rulers, was indeed empty.
Deputy speaker has not listened to all the arguments. Hakusikiliza, not because we had to move. NO. It's a feature that same authoritarianism and fun quest had given him the title. Now!
For example, regulation 5 (1) of the Standing Orders of the National Assembly speaker directs, in carrying out its duties, based on the decision of the Speaker came before.
In the Ninth Parliament, which was its speaker, Samuel Sitta, allowed two members of the Justice Committee, Ethics and Powers of Parliament, Christopher Ole Sendeka and Anne Kilango Malecela, alternative parliament to submit their comments.
Is there a committee counsel ikijadili became the active and Dk. Reginald Mengi against former MP Mkuranga, Adam Malima.
Kilango and Sendeka were allowed to read their opinions in front of the whole House.
And Sitta after reading opinion Kilango and Sendeka he concluded, in agreement with the opinion of two members of the group against members of the majority.
Sitta reached this decision given the circumstances that prevailed from the trial, giving evidence to the writing of judgments.
Many complained that the Committee was under Hunga Juma and his deputy, Willison TSh, isingemtendea right.
He said that there were circumstances of the axis of administration (executive) intervention axis of Parliament (Legislature), which is the opposite of good governance and separation of powers.
He claimed that the former prime minister at the time, Edward Lowassa, advised commit in this case, legislators have been bribed by one of the leading businessmen in the country.
Ndesamburo Philemon, who was one of the members of the committee, resigned mid-counsel for what he called "the committee bribes."
To eliminate confusion, Sitta wrote a letter to clarify the allegations he Ndesamburo zoporomoshea MPs and Parliament.
In his letter to Sitta, on 24 January 2007, Ndesamburo continued to emphasize the presence of corruption and pressure from state governors.
Sitta explained in his decision he reads in Parliament on 8 February 2007, that he considers the results of the investigation and the advice of the committee; advice of two members who offered different ideas - Sendeka and Aperture - the analysis and definition of prescribed and Ndesamburo.
Sitta did not want to agree with the majority opinion. He refused. He was satisfied that the decision was made to emotion and focused on the existence of bad faith.
He said that the words of parliament Much Malima against yalimuathiri businessman and had a major impact on kumgonganisha heads of state and leaders.
In search of this current, it is clear that the deputy speaker decided maliciously. He would not translate well to the principles of bunge.Hakutaka see the most interest in the arguments of legislators.
Deputy speaker has failed to harness the wisdom and principles. As a result, he emerged with a decision that instead of connecting the legislature has cut the side middle.
0 maoni:
Chapisha Maoni