Court rejects Mpina’s petition
DAR ES SALAAM: THE High Court in Dar es Salaam has rejected the constitutional petition lodged by Kisesa Constituency Member of Parliament (MP), Dr Luhaga Mpina, challenging the impropriety of parliamentary proceedings and his suspension from fifteen parliamentary sittings.
Judge Awamu Mbagwa arrived at the decision after allowing one ground of objection raised by the respondents into the matter that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition of the petitioner, who is a law maker from the ruling party, Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM).
“I find the third preliminary objection on the jurisdiction of the Court meritorious and consequently, I sustain it. I hereby strike out this petition for want of jurisdiction and since this is a public interest litigation, I make no order as to costs. It is so ordered,” the judge declared.
The respondents into the matter, who enjoyed services of Principal State Attorneys Hangi Chang’a and Obadia Kamea and State Attorneys, Edwin Webiro and Thuaiba Jume, were the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Minister for Agriculture and the Attorney General (AG).
During the hearing session, the petitioner was ably represented by set of Advocates John Seka, Edson Kilatu, Ferdinand Makole and Fredrick Msaki.
Mr Webiro, for the respondents, had argued that the petition was incompetent and therefore the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter in terms of Article 100 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Parliamentary Immunities, Powers and Privileges Act.
The respondents’ counsel contended that the petitioner is challenging the impropriety of the parliamentary proceedings and the resultant punishment of suspension from 15 parliamentary sittings.
ALSO READ: Court of appeal upholds murder convictions of six for massacre
He was thus of the firm view that the petitioner’s grievances cannot be entertained by the Court because they are ousted from the court’s intervention by virtue of the above provisions of laws.
In rebuttal, the petitioner’s counsel opposed the objection saying, the petitioner was challenging the constitutionality of the provisions of the Parliamentary Standing Orders and hence, in terms of Articles 108 and 107A, the Court enjoys full mandate to entertain the complaints.
In his decision, the judge pointed out that the Court could inquire into parliamentary business only if the acts complained of were done, either without jurisdiction, in contravention of the mandatory provisions of the Constitution, or in the exercise of powers which the Parliament does not possess.
It was undisputed that the petitioner was investigated and subsequently suspended under the provisions of the Parliamentary Standing Orders made under Article 89 of the Constitution which empowers the National Assembly to enact Standing Orders for the purpose of prescribing procedure for the conduct of its business.
“I am satisfied that the Parliamentary proceedings and the subsequent suspension complained of by the petitioner were neither violative of the Constitutional provisions nor can one dare say that the National Assembly exercised the powers which it did not possess,” he said.
The judge was inclined that the acts complained of were within the walls of the National Assembly and for that reason, the Court is barred, in terms of Article 100 of the Constitution, from questioning them.
“Noteworthy that in upholding the doctrine of separation of powers, in particular the parliamentary immunities and privileges as provided under Article 100 of the Constitution, the Court is not enjoined to inquire into internal parliamentary businesses that are not at variance with the Constitutional dictates,” he said.
The controversy arose on June 4, 2024, while the Minister for Agriculture was addressing the National Assembly on the budget estimates for 2024/2025.
Dr Mpina informed the National Assembly that the minister lied to the National Assembly and the public at large in respect of gap sugar of about 60,000 metric tons of the year 2022/2023.
ALSO READ: High Court permits ex-police corporal to challenge dismissal
Following these accusations, the Speaker of the National Assembly required the petitioner to submit the evidence to substantiate his allegations by June 14, 2024. The petitioner complied with the order.
However, no sooner had the petitioner submitted the evidence to the Speaker than he held a press conference and shared the contents of his evidence with the media. This act was viewed as unethical conduct within the purview of the Parliamentary Standing Orders.
Thus, on June 18, 2024, the Speaker assigned the Parliamentary Committee on Rights, Ethics and Powers, among other things, to investigate whether the petitioner’s allegations against the Minister were valid. The committee was also tasks to inquire on whether the petitioner’s conduct of sharing the evidence with the media constituted insubordination to the Speaker and the National Assembly at large.
According to the pleadings, the Committee found the petitioner guilty. Consequently, the National Assembly under the superintendence of the Speaker suspended the petitioner from 15 Parliamentary sittings The petitioner was discontented with the way he was treated in the entire inquiry exercise and the resultant punishment imposed by the 1st respondent.
He thus brought this petition under the provisions of Article 107 A (1) and 108(2) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977 read together with section 2(3) of the Judicature and Application of the Laws Act.
