Nilifanya hivyo kwa kunukuu Taarifa ya Kamati ya Huduma za Jamii ambayo pamoja na kuwa mwezi Februari 2012 bunge lilikataliwa kujadili masuala husika mpaka kwanza kamati hiyo ikapate ukweli wa pande zote mbili na kuwasilisha mapendekezo kwa bunge, taarifa ya Kamati hiyo kuhusu bajeti iliyowasilishwa jana haikueleza chochote nini kamati ilibaini baada ya kukutana na wadau mbalimbali wa sekta ya afya wala haikueleza ni ushauri gani iliutoa kwa serikali kuupatia ufumbuzi mgogoro uliokuwepo wala haikuwasilisha bungeni mapendekezo yoyote yaliyotokana na kazi waliyopewa na bunge. Aidha, Nilinukuu pia maoni ya Kambi Rasmi ya Upinzani ambayo yalieleza bayana kuwa mwezi Juni yalitolewa majibu yasiyokuwa ya kweli bungeni kuwa Taarifa ya Kamati hiyo iliwasilishwa bungeni.
Kufuatia hali hiyo, na kutokana na bajeti hiyo ya afya kuwa finyu huku ikiwa na utegemezi wa fedha kutoka nje kwa ziadi ya asilimia 90 kwa mwaka wa fedha 2012/2013 wakati ambapo katika mwaka wa fedha 2011/2012 kiwango cha fedha ambazo wahisani walileta ni asilimia 36 pamoja na kuahidi kuchangia zaidi ya 90 kwenye fedha za maendeleo; hali ambayo itaendeleza migogoro kwenye sekta ya afya.
Nikataka ili bunge liweze kuisimamia serikali kushughulikia vyanzo vya migogoro kwenye sekta ya afya nchini; Taarifa ya Kamati ya Huduma za Jamii iliyoshughulikia madai ya madaktari iwasilishwe na kujadiliwa bungeni, majibu ya Naibu Spika aliyoyatoa ni kwamba taarifa hiyo haiwezi kuwasilishwa kwa bungeni kwa kuwa kuna kesi mahakamani baina serikali na Madaktari. Majibu hayo yamenifanya niwakumbushe taarifa hii ambayo niliitoa tarehe 29 Julai 2012 ili wadau wa afya mshiriki katika kutaka hatua muafaka toka kwa Serikali na Uongozi wa Bunge:
BUNGE LISIZUIWE KUTUMIA HAKI, UHURU NA MADARAKA YAKE KWA MUJIBU WA IBARA ZA 63 NA 100 ZA KATIBA YA NCHI KUISIMAMIA SERIKALI KWA NIABA YA WANANCHI KUHUSU HALI YA SEKTA YA AFYA NCHINI NA MGOGORO KATI YA SERIKALI NA MADAKTARI WAKATI WA MJADALA WA BAJETI YA WIZARA YA AFYA NA USTAWI WA JAMII
Tarehe 30 na 31 Julai 2012 Bunge litajadili Makadirio ya Mapato na Matumizi ya Wizara ya Afya na Ustawi wa Jamii, kwa mwaka wa fedha 2012/2013. Kwa zaidi ya miezi mitatu bunge limekuwa likizuiwa kutumia haki, uhuru na madaraka yake kwa mujibu wa ibara za 63 na 100 za Katiba ya Nchi kuisimamia serikali kwa niaba ya wananchi kuhusu hali ya sekta ya afya nchini na migogoro kati ya Serikali na madaktari.
Hali hii ilianza mwezi Februari 2012 Bunge lilizuiwa kujadili suala hilo kwa kisingizio kwamba mpaka kwanza kamati ya bunge iende kukutana na wadau wote na kuwasilisha taarifa bungeni; ripoti ambayo mpaka sasa haijawasilishwa. Hali hii ikashamiri zaidi mwezi Juni na Julai mwaka 2012 ambapo bunge lilizuiwa kujadili masuala husika kwa kisingizio kwamba kuna kesi mahakamani.
Kwa chanzo cha hali duni kwenye sekta ya afya nchini na migogoro kati ya Serikali na madaktari ni udhaifu katika utekelezaji wa bajeti ya serikali na ufinyu wa kiwango cha fedha kinachotengwa kwa ajili ya sekta husika kwa ajili ya madawa, vifaa tiba na maslahi ya watumishi wa umma kwenye sekta husika; mjadala kuhusu mapatio ya utekelezaji wa bajeti kwa mwaka wa fedha 2011/2012 na makadirio ya mapato na matumizi ya Wizara ya Afya kwa mwaka wa fedha 2012/2013 iwe fursa ya bunge kuingilia kati kutafuta ufumbuzi.
Hivyo, natoa mwito kwa wananchi na wadau wa Sekta ya Afya kutaka ripoti ya Kamati ya Bunge ya Huduma za Jamii iliyoshughulikia suala hilo kuanzia mwezi Februari 2012 iwasilishwe bungeni iweze kutumika kama rejea wakati wa mjadala husika. Maelezo yaliyotolewa bungeni na Naibu Spika Job Ndugai kuwa taarifa hiyo ilishawasilishwa bungeni hayakuwa ya kweli, kwa kuwa wabunge hatujapewa nakala wala kujadili ripoti husika na kama mbunge nimeomba nakala ya ripoti husika lakini imeendelea kufanywa kuwa siri.
Aidha, uongozi wa Bunge usiendelee kutumia visingizio vya suala kuwa mahakamani badala yake uliwezeshe bunge kutumia ipasavyo madaraka na mamlaka yake kwa mujibu wa katiba na kanuni za bunge kuliwezesha bunge kujadili hali ya huduma za afya nchini na kushughulikia chanzo cha mgogoro ulioendelea kati ya serikali na madaktari wenye athari kwa nchi na maisha ya wananchi na hatimaye kuongeza bajeti kwa Wizara ya Afya kwenye mwaka wa fedha 2012/2013.
Ni muhimu uongozi wa bunge ukazingatia kwamba maamuzi ya Spika, Naibu Spika na Wenyeviti wa bunge kudhibiti mijadala kwa kisingizio cha masuala kuwa mahakamani tayari nilishayakatia rufaa toka tarehe 3 Julai 2012 hivyo kinachotakiwa katika hatua ya sasa ni kuitishwa kwa dharura kwa kikao cha kamati ya kanuni kuweza kubatilisha uamuzi huo ili wabunge watumie uhuru wa kikatiba wa ibara ya 100 kuwawakilisha wananchi katika kuisimamia serikali juu ya masuala husika
Niliwasilisha rufaa hiyo kwa katibu ambayo inapaswa kujadiliwa na kamati ya kanuni za bunge baada ya kutopokea majibu ya barua zangu mbili za kumshauri Spika kurekebisha miongozo iliyotolewa awali kuliwezesha bunge kutumia ipasavyo madaraka na mamlaka yake kwa mujibu wa katiba na kanuni za bunge kuliwezesha bunge kujadili hali ya huduma za afya nchini, jaribio la mauji ya Dkt. Ulimboka Steven na kushughulikia chanzo cha mgogoro unaoendelea kati ya serikali na madaktari wenye athari kwa nchi na maisha ya wananchi.
Ikumbukwe kwamba tarehe 27, 28, na 29 Juni 2012, na tarehe 2, 3 na 4 Julai 2012 kwa nyakati mbalimbali kumetolewa miongozo, maamuzi, majibu na Mheshimiwa Spika Anne Makinda, Mheshimiwa Naibu Spika Job Ndugai na Waheshimiwa Wenyeviti wa Bunge Sylvester Mabumba Jenister Mhagama kwamba suala la madai ya madaktari na mgogoro uliotokana na madai hayo ni masuala ambayo hayapaswi kujadiliwa bungeni kwa kuwa kanuni ya 64 (1) (c) ya kanuni za bunge toleo 2007 inamkataza mbunge kuzungumzia jambo lolote ambalo linasubiri uamuzi wa mahakama.
Katika rufaa yangu kwa kuzingatia masharti ya kanuni ya 5 (4) niliwasilisha maelezo ya kutoridhika na maamuzi yaliyofanyika kwa sababu tatu zifuatazo:
SABABU YA KWANZA; Taarifa za Vyombo vya habari zimeeleza kwamba kesi iliyopo mahakamani imefunguliwa dhidi ya Chama Cha Madaktari (MAT) na si Jumuiya ya Madaktari Nchini pamoja na vyama vingine vya watumishi na wataalamu katika sekta ya afya na masuala mengine ya sekta husika. Aidha, ukiondoa suala la madai ya madaktari ambayo ni kati ya hoja zilizo mahakamani masuala mengine yanayoendelea si sehemu ya madai yaliyopo mahakamani, mathalani hali ya hivi sasa ya kudorora kwa huduma katika hospitali za umma nchini. Hivyo, Spika kukataza masuala husika ni kinyume na kanuni 5 (1) na ni kuingilia masharti ya ibara ya 100 ya katiba ya nchi yanayolinda na kuhifadhi uhuru wa mawazo na majadiliano katika Bunge.
SABABU YA PILI; hata masuala yanayosubiri uamuzi wa mahakama ambayo yamewekewa masharti kwa mujibu wa kanuni 64 (1) (c) yanaweza kuruhusiwa kujadiliwa bungeni kwa muongozo na utaratibu utakaowezesha majadiliano kufanyika bila kuingilia uhuru wa mahakama kwa kuzingatia kanuni ya 5 (1) ya Kanuni za Kudumu za Bunge.
Kanuni ya 5 (1) inaeleza kuwa katika kutekeleza majukumu yake yaliyotajwa na ibara ya 84 ya katiba, Spika ataongozwa na kanuni hizi na pale ambapo kanuni hazijatoa mwongozo, basi spika atafanya kazi kwa kuzingatia katiba, sheria nyingine za nchi, kanuni nyingine zilizopo, maamuzi ya awali ya maspika wa Bunge pamoja na mila na desturi za mabunge mengine yenye utaratibu wa kibunge unaofanana na utaratibu wa Bunge la Tanzania.
Kwa kuwa maneno “jambo lolote linalosubiri uamuzi wa mahakama” hayajapewa tafsiri kwa mujibu wa kanuni, sijaridhika na miongozo ya Spika iliyotafsiri maneno hayo kudhibiti bunge kujadili masuala niliyoyaeleza. Hivyo, nimeiomba kamati ya kanuni itoe tafsiri sahihi kwa kuzingatia masharti ya Ibara ya 100 ya Katiba na sheria ya Haki, Kinga na Madaraka ya Bunge kwa kurejea pia maamuzi ya awali ya maspika wa bunge pamoja na mila na desturi za mabunge mengine yenye utaratibu wa kibunge unaofanana na utaratibu wa bunge la Tanzania.
Katika maelezo ya awali nimeiomba kamati irejee nyaraka toka maktaba ya Bunge la Uingereza ambalo lina utaratibu kama wetu wa kibunge ( “Separation of Powers- Standard Note: SN/PC/06053) ambayo katika ukurasa wa saba imeeleza yafuatayo kuhusu kanuni hiyo ya kukataza majadiliano bungeni kuhusu masuala yaliyo mahakamani ambayo kwa kiingereza huitwa “Sub Judice”:
“The Sub Judice rule is intended to defend the rule of the law and citizens’ right to fair trial. Where an issue is awaiting determination by the courts, that issue should not be discussed in the House in any motion, debate or question in case that should affect decisions of the court.
However, the sub judice rules are not absolute: The chair of proceedings of the House of Commons enjoys the discretion to permit such matters to be discussed. Morever, sub judice does not affect the right of parliament to legislate on any matter.
Aidha, uongozi wa Bunge usiendelee kutumia visingizio vya suala kuwa mahakamani badala yake uliwezeshe bunge kutumia ipasavyo madaraka na mamlaka yake kwa mujibu wa katiba na kanuni za bunge kuliwezesha bunge kujadili hali ya huduma za afya nchini na kushughulikia chanzo cha mgogoro ulioendelea kati ya serikali na madaktari wenye athari kwa nchi na maisha ya wananchi na hatimaye kuongeza bajeti kwa Wizara ya Afya kwenye mwaka wa fedha 2012/2013.
Ni muhimu uongozi wa bunge ukazingatia kwamba maamuzi ya Spika, Naibu Spika na Wenyeviti wa bunge kudhibiti mijadala kwa kisingizio cha masuala kuwa mahakamani tayari nilishayakatia rufaa toka tarehe 3 Julai 2012 hivyo kinachotakiwa katika hatua ya sasa ni kuitishwa kwa dharura kwa kikao cha kamati ya kanuni kuweza kubatilisha uamuzi huo ili wabunge watumie uhuru wa kikatiba wa ibara ya 100 kuwawakilisha wananchi katika kuisimamia serikali juu ya masuala husika
Niliwasilisha rufaa hiyo kwa katibu ambayo inapaswa kujadiliwa na kamati ya kanuni za bunge baada ya kutopokea majibu ya barua zangu mbili za kumshauri Spika kurekebisha miongozo iliyotolewa awali kuliwezesha bunge kutumia ipasavyo madaraka na mamlaka yake kwa mujibu wa katiba na kanuni za bunge kuliwezesha bunge kujadili hali ya huduma za afya nchini, jaribio la mauji ya Dkt. Ulimboka Steven na kushughulikia chanzo cha mgogoro unaoendelea kati ya serikali na madaktari wenye athari kwa nchi na maisha ya wananchi.
Ikumbukwe kwamba tarehe 27, 28, na 29 Juni 2012, na tarehe 2, 3 na 4 Julai 2012 kwa nyakati mbalimbali kumetolewa miongozo, maamuzi, majibu na Mheshimiwa Spika Anne Makinda, Mheshimiwa Naibu Spika Job Ndugai na Waheshimiwa Wenyeviti wa Bunge Sylvester Mabumba Jenister Mhagama kwamba suala la madai ya madaktari na mgogoro uliotokana na madai hayo ni masuala ambayo hayapaswi kujadiliwa bungeni kwa kuwa kanuni ya 64 (1) (c) ya kanuni za bunge toleo 2007 inamkataza mbunge kuzungumzia jambo lolote ambalo linasubiri uamuzi wa mahakama.
Katika rufaa yangu kwa kuzingatia masharti ya kanuni ya 5 (4) niliwasilisha maelezo ya kutoridhika na maamuzi yaliyofanyika kwa sababu tatu zifuatazo:
SABABU YA KWANZA; Taarifa za Vyombo vya habari zimeeleza kwamba kesi iliyopo mahakamani imefunguliwa dhidi ya Chama Cha Madaktari (MAT) na si Jumuiya ya Madaktari Nchini pamoja na vyama vingine vya watumishi na wataalamu katika sekta ya afya na masuala mengine ya sekta husika. Aidha, ukiondoa suala la madai ya madaktari ambayo ni kati ya hoja zilizo mahakamani masuala mengine yanayoendelea si sehemu ya madai yaliyopo mahakamani, mathalani hali ya hivi sasa ya kudorora kwa huduma katika hospitali za umma nchini. Hivyo, Spika kukataza masuala husika ni kinyume na kanuni 5 (1) na ni kuingilia masharti ya ibara ya 100 ya katiba ya nchi yanayolinda na kuhifadhi uhuru wa mawazo na majadiliano katika Bunge.
SABABU YA PILI; hata masuala yanayosubiri uamuzi wa mahakama ambayo yamewekewa masharti kwa mujibu wa kanuni 64 (1) (c) yanaweza kuruhusiwa kujadiliwa bungeni kwa muongozo na utaratibu utakaowezesha majadiliano kufanyika bila kuingilia uhuru wa mahakama kwa kuzingatia kanuni ya 5 (1) ya Kanuni za Kudumu za Bunge.
Kanuni ya 5 (1) inaeleza kuwa katika kutekeleza majukumu yake yaliyotajwa na ibara ya 84 ya katiba, Spika ataongozwa na kanuni hizi na pale ambapo kanuni hazijatoa mwongozo, basi spika atafanya kazi kwa kuzingatia katiba, sheria nyingine za nchi, kanuni nyingine zilizopo, maamuzi ya awali ya maspika wa Bunge pamoja na mila na desturi za mabunge mengine yenye utaratibu wa kibunge unaofanana na utaratibu wa Bunge la Tanzania.
Kwa kuwa maneno “jambo lolote linalosubiri uamuzi wa mahakama” hayajapewa tafsiri kwa mujibu wa kanuni, sijaridhika na miongozo ya Spika iliyotafsiri maneno hayo kudhibiti bunge kujadili masuala niliyoyaeleza. Hivyo, nimeiomba kamati ya kanuni itoe tafsiri sahihi kwa kuzingatia masharti ya Ibara ya 100 ya Katiba na sheria ya Haki, Kinga na Madaraka ya Bunge kwa kurejea pia maamuzi ya awali ya maspika wa bunge pamoja na mila na desturi za mabunge mengine yenye utaratibu wa kibunge unaofanana na utaratibu wa bunge la Tanzania.
Katika maelezo ya awali nimeiomba kamati irejee nyaraka toka maktaba ya Bunge la Uingereza ambalo lina utaratibu kama wetu wa kibunge ( “Separation of Powers- Standard Note: SN/PC/06053) ambayo katika ukurasa wa saba imeeleza yafuatayo kuhusu kanuni hiyo ya kukataza majadiliano bungeni kuhusu masuala yaliyo mahakamani ambayo kwa kiingereza huitwa “Sub Judice”:
“The Sub Judice rule is intended to defend the rule of the law and citizens’ right to fair trial. Where an issue is awaiting determination by the courts, that issue should not be discussed in the House in any motion, debate or question in case that should affect decisions of the court.
However, the sub judice rules are not absolute: The chair of proceedings of the House of Commons enjoys the discretion to permit such matters to be discussed. Morever, sub judice does not affect the right of parliament to legislate on any matter.
The 1999 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege explained that sub judice rules are intended to “strike a balance between two sets of principles. On the one hand, the rights of parties in legal proceedings should not be prejudiced by discussion of their case in Parliament, and Parliament should not prevent the courts from exercising their functions. On the other hand, Parliament has a constitutional right to discuss any matter it pleases”
Maelezo hayo yanathibitisha kwamba bunge linaweza kujadili masuala yaliyo mahakamani ilimradi mjadala huo usilenge kuathiri maamuzi ya kesi iliyo mahakamani, na pia Spika anayo mamlaka ya kutoa uhuru wa majadiliano kwa masuala yaliyo mahakamani bila kuingilia uhuru wa mahakama na kwamba kesi kuwa mahakamani hakuwezi kulizuia bunge kutumia haki na madaraka yake ya kikatiba.
SABABU YA TATU; Spika badala ya kudhibiti mjadala huo bungeni kwa kutumia kanuni 64 (1) (c) angetoa muongozo wa kuwezesha kutolewa kwa hoja ya kutengua kanuni kwa mujibu wa kanuni ya 150 kuruhusu mjadala kwa kuzingatia masharti ya ibara ya 63 (2) na Ibara ya 100 ya katiba ya nchi.
HIVYO kwa kuzingatia sababu nilizozieleza niliomba kamati ibatilishe maamuzi hayo yaliyofanyika, kutoa pia muongozo wa kikanuni na pia itoe mapendekezo kwa Kamati ya Uongozi ya Bunge ili kurekebisha udhaifu wa kuingiliwa visivyo kwa uhuru wa majadiliano bungeni na kuathiri haki, kinga na madaraka ya bunge ya kuisimamia serikali kuhusu maslahi ya watumishi wa afya na hali ya sekta ya afya nchini hata kwa masuala yaliyo mahakamani. Hata kamati ya kanuni isipokutana na kushughulikia rufaa bado Spika wabunge anaweza kurejea ushauri niliotoa kwake kwa maandishi kwa kutumia njia nne za kikanuni zilizo kwenye mamlaka yake na ya bunge kuwezesha mjadala wa mapitio ya utekelezaji wa bajeti kwa mwaka wa fedha 2011/2012 na makadirio ya mapato na matumizi ya Wizara ya Afya na Ustawi wa Jamii kwa mwaka wa fedha 2012/2013 kushughulikia vyanzo vya matatizo husika bila kuingilia maamuzi ya masuala yaliyo mahakamani.
Wenu katika kuwawakilisha wananchi,
John Mnyika (Mb)
29/7/2012
Maelezo hayo yanathibitisha kwamba bunge linaweza kujadili masuala yaliyo mahakamani ilimradi mjadala huo usilenge kuathiri maamuzi ya kesi iliyo mahakamani, na pia Spika anayo mamlaka ya kutoa uhuru wa majadiliano kwa masuala yaliyo mahakamani bila kuingilia uhuru wa mahakama na kwamba kesi kuwa mahakamani hakuwezi kulizuia bunge kutumia haki na madaraka yake ya kikatiba.
SABABU YA TATU; Spika badala ya kudhibiti mjadala huo bungeni kwa kutumia kanuni 64 (1) (c) angetoa muongozo wa kuwezesha kutolewa kwa hoja ya kutengua kanuni kwa mujibu wa kanuni ya 150 kuruhusu mjadala kwa kuzingatia masharti ya ibara ya 63 (2) na Ibara ya 100 ya katiba ya nchi.
HIVYO kwa kuzingatia sababu nilizozieleza niliomba kamati ibatilishe maamuzi hayo yaliyofanyika, kutoa pia muongozo wa kikanuni na pia itoe mapendekezo kwa Kamati ya Uongozi ya Bunge ili kurekebisha udhaifu wa kuingiliwa visivyo kwa uhuru wa majadiliano bungeni na kuathiri haki, kinga na madaraka ya bunge ya kuisimamia serikali kuhusu maslahi ya watumishi wa afya na hali ya sekta ya afya nchini hata kwa masuala yaliyo mahakamani. Hata kamati ya kanuni isipokutana na kushughulikia rufaa bado Spika wabunge anaweza kurejea ushauri niliotoa kwake kwa maandishi kwa kutumia njia nne za kikanuni zilizo kwenye mamlaka yake na ya bunge kuwezesha mjadala wa mapitio ya utekelezaji wa bajeti kwa mwaka wa fedha 2011/2012 na makadirio ya mapato na matumizi ya Wizara ya Afya na Ustawi wa Jamii kwa mwaka wa fedha 2012/2013 kushughulikia vyanzo vya matatizo husika bila kuingilia maamuzi ya masuala yaliyo mahakamani.
Wenu katika kuwawakilisha wananchi,
John Mnyika (Mb)
29/7/2012
8 comments:
Umesema sahihi Mheshimiwa.
Ni uoga wa serikali tu. Nadhani wanahisi wakifungua mjadala mambo yatakuwa out of control. Hata wananchi hatujui kwa nini viongozi wa bunge wanazuia mjadala wenye maslahi makubwa kwa nchi. Kikawaida mahakama inafanya kazi 'independently' hawapangiwi siku ya kusikiliza kesi, kwa hivyo inaweza kuchukua muda mrefu sana na hivyo hali kuendelea kuwa mbaya kwa wananchi tunaotegemea huduma kutoka sekta hii. Tengependa hekima itawale bunge ili lijadili matatizo yanayotugusa wananchi kuliko kuendekeza mivutano yenye mielekeo ya kisiasa.
kamati iliundwa ili ifanye nini.na kwa manufaa ya nani kama haiwezi kusoma taharifa waliyoipata kutoka serikalini na kwa madaktari?
Hii mifuko ni kandamizi kwani inakuwa na fedha nyingi na kuwaacha wachangiaji hawana kitu. Katika vitega uchumi vyake ilibidi kuwarudishia wachangiaji 'subscribers' kama gawio kwa kila mwaka hilo halifanyiki na unyonyaji. Aidha, fedha ambazo mtu anakuja kupewa akistaafu hazina kinga ya mfumuko wa bei shilingi ninayo weka leo inanguvu kuliko nnitakayo chukua kesho. Ni vema haya yote yakaangaliwa. Pia wengine wakistaafu hufa haraka na kuacha mafao katika mifuko hiyo kwa faida ya nani? Wahe. kazeni boot katika hili.
Naunga mkono anonymous wa mwisho kwani ni kweli kabisa hizi hela hazimsaidii subscribers kwani kwa uhalisia wa ugumu wa maisha wengi wanakufa au kupata magonjwa yatokanayo na stress huku hela yake iko kwenye mfuko wa serikali.waheshimiwa mfuko huu uwe wa msaada zaidi katka maisha ya mtanzania hai na sio mfu au mgojwa maana uzima ndio unaotumia akili na si vinginevyo.
Nivema wakaangali kwa wale waliojiunga na kufanyakazi katika mashirika ya kimataifa,ambapo mikataba ya hayo mashirika sii zaidi ya miaka miwili,wanasema ikiwezekana unaongeza mkataba! je wasipoongeza na wewe ushachangia kwa hiyo miaka miwili inakuaje? na kwa wale ambao washakaa kwa zaidi ya mikamitano na wanataka kuendelea n ajapo biashara iwejewasubiri hadi hiyo miaka hamsini natano? kwa kipindi cha hapo kati watakua wanafanya nini? je hawaoni wanawanyima wananchi uhuru wa kuamua na kufanya kile mtu anachokipenda? kwani ni lazima mtu aajiriwe?
Social Security Regulatory Authority (SSRA) has recently been formed in Tanzania to regulate functions and conducts of social security fund schemes in Tanzania. As a result a law was passed in April 2012 to review the conduct of the funds including restricting early withdraw of members money until when they reach their voluntary or compulsory retirement ages, i.e. 55yrs and 65yrs. Here are my views on how the new law did not consider the diverse employment terms under which those employed work in. The implementation of the new law as it is now will seriously compromise the economic rights of employees.
The following are my views:
1. I think the law did not consider the nature of employment in private organizations. There is no permanent employment in a similar arrangements like in government or public sector where people are permanently employment to their retirement age. In private organizations most of the contract are short term, some for months and some for 1 – 5 years. We need to inquire more to understand and explore legal ways if any for people to withdraw their reserves once their contract expires. Otherwise it seems the law has been purposely formulated to protect those who keep the funds rather than the workers. It makes little sense for someone who works for, say 2 years, doesn’t secure another formal employment thereafter yet make them suffer for the rest of their lifetime until they reach 55.
2. After the expiry of a fixed term employment contract it isn’t automatic that a person will secure another employment neither does the government guarantee another employment to this person immediately. There is a possibility therefore that one may not secure a formal employment qualifying him/her to continuously make savings in a pension scheme. Should this person wait until he/she is 55 to start enjoying his savings? So if you are 30 you have to wait for 25 years?
3. Some employing firms/sectors are here for a short term for example construction, NGOs/CSOs, Mining, DFP projects etc. They’ll therefore wind up their businesses before an employer reaches his/her retirement age. There won’t be anybody to process documents for their ex-employees at the material time, the new law should consider the modus operandi of such organizations.
4. The most discouraging thing is that government officials and politicians do have access to these funds even without being members of such schemes at the first place. Some of the social funds have invested members’ money in questionable projects mostly influenced by political leaders rather than factors which would financially benefit the funds and consequently the members. There is no clear trade off benefits for workers to say yes we can forgo withdrawing money now for such and such benefits in shorter, medium and longer terms. This isn’t clear at all. It is said that SSRA will come up with a way workers can use their reserve as collateral to the commercial banks for loans. The question is, why didn’t that come in the same framework of the new law?
5. We have noticed in recent and past times that the pension scheme parastatals (NSSF, PPF, LGPF etc) are not exercising due diligence in investing these monies. Some politicians and influential government officials are heard to have taken soft loans from these organizations despite the fact that they are not members to the respective schemes. There isn't a careful vetting system before a particular project is adopted to ensure risks and pensioners interests are taken into consideration. The conduct/governance of these organizations have been questioned at many occasions. Even the previous law gave these funds almost exclusive powers to do anything with pensioners money. Employees of these schemes (NSSF, PPF etc.) are given loans of up to more than shs 80million yet it is not clear as to how an individual pensioner can access loan from his/her respective savings.
Continued...
6. Let us be realistic, on average how much money does the member have in these social security funds? Will the amount provide enough security for a commercial bank to issue a loan for a decent residential house? Banks give loans to make profit through interest, what business plan will the early retired employee give to the bank to justify giving him/her money? Interesting to understand how SSRA or the new law will broker this deal!
7. How much (in %age) interest will members’ fund get at the 55th year or 65th year? What benefit do members get out of the gigantic investments made by their respective funds? How does the law protect the members from their funds being misused or invested in white elephant projects? How does the law prevent interference from politicians? The stake of these funds belong to the members/workers, how does the law make the CEOs of these schemes accountable to the holders of these funds?
8. Protecting workers interest: The Director General of SSRA has alluded that the government concern is to protect workers' interest. In normal terms interest means something likable to the concerned person. I am not sure what SSRA says to be an interest is really of interest to workers. There was no mutual consultations before to really ascertain what are the matters of interest to the workers as far as the conduct of pension schemes is concerned. The pretext/basis/premises of forming this law seem not to be genuine as those us whom the law purport to protect our interest are not happy.
9. My last point is on the overall governance of the schemes: The conduct/governance of the pension funds have been questioned at many occasions. I think even the previous law gave these funds almost exclusive powers to do anything with pensioners money without seamless accountability. How can for example the CEO of NSSF, PPF, LGPF, etc. be responsible to those who keep their money there? Which authority should appoint them to ensure independence and professionalism is promoted in day to day running of the funds? How should politicians and government officials keep their hands off and avoid interfering with the conducts of these organizations?
1 a)Kuna wazee wengi kwa sasa wanatabika licha ya kupea mafao ya uzeeni. Hawana nguvu tena za kuendeleza mitaji yao
b)Thamani ya fedha hushuka kila mwaka hivyo kusubiri mpaka 55 ni kukomoa
c)mfumo wa ajira hapa nhini ni wa kubahatisha, kumbukumbu hupotea, mtu kupata kazi baada ya kuacha sehemu nyingine sio rahisi. Hivyo kusubiri miaka 25 au 15 ni uhuni.
d0fedha hizi zinasaidia kusomesha au kujisomesha pale mtu anapotoka kazini ama kwa kuachishwa au kuacha ili afanye shughuli nyingine.
2. Mimi sikushirikishwa kwa namna yoyote,hata hivyo sheria ipo kwa ajlili ya wananchi na sisi sasa hatuitaki.
3. Miongozo hata iwe bora ni lazima kipengele cha umri au muda wa kuchukua mafao kiondolewe.
By the way CHADEMA shoulb buy this to take away these people who seem to be tired of thinking.
Post a Comment