 |
| The case has not only brought the sugar industry under scrutiny but has also cast a spotlight on how Parliament handles internal disciplinary matters. Photo: Courtesy |
The much-anticipated ruling on the case involving Kisesa MP Luhaga Mpina was postponed today, October 18, 2024, after the presiding judge failed to complete the judgment. The case has drawn national attention due to its implications for parliamentary authority, government accountability, and the rights of Tanzanian citizens.
In addition to journalists, sugarcane farmers from Kilombero filled the High Court’s Dar es Salaam sub-registry in the hopes of hearing the decision. However, by 2:32 PM, it was announced that the ruling would not proceed as planned.
Government lawyer Hang Chang’a, representing the respondents, informed the court that Judge Awamu Mbagwa required more time to finalize the judgment, having been overwhelmed with work.
"The court must postpone the matter until October 24, 2024," Chang’a said, explaining that the judge had been tied up with other cases, some of which had kept him in court late into the night. He emphasized that this delay was necessary to ensure that justice was served.
Mpina’s legal battle, which has captivated public attention, faced another delay after Chang’a, one of the court officials, announced that the case must be postponed until October 24, 2024. He cited the judge's heavy caseload as the reason for the postponement, explaining that several ongoing cases had extended court sessions late into the night. This delay, Chang’a emphasized, was necessary to ensure the judicial process was thorough and justice was properly served.
The case revolves around Mpina, a key opposition figure, who has been entangled in a legal dispute since June 2024, when he was suspended from attending 15 parliamentary sessions. The suspension stemmed from accusations Mpina leveled against Minister of Agriculture Hussein Bashe, alleging that the minister had unlawfully issued sugar import permits. After an investigation, the Parliamentary Ethics Committee dismissed the allegations as baseless, resulting in Mpina's suspension.
However, Mpina contends that his suspension violated his constitutional right to a fair hearing. In response, he filed a constitutional petition, arguing that the parliamentary decision was politically motivated and that he was not granted a proper opportunity to defend himself. His lawyer, Edson Kilatu, stressed that this case extends beyond Mpina’s personal grievances, stating, "This is not just Mpina's case; it is a case for all Tanzanians. The constitution must be respected, and fundamental rights should not be trampled on by any arm of government."
Kilatu dismissed the government's objections that the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter, calling them unfounded. The government's legal team has maintained that parliamentary discipline falls under internal parliamentary rules and that the court should not intervene in legislative procedures. They argue that Mpina had alternative avenues to raise his concerns, such as submitting a formal complaint to the Speaker or seeking a judicial review of the parliamentary process. Furthermore, they pointed to Article 107A (1) of the Tanzania Constitution, which establishes the judiciary as the final authority in the dispensation of justice. Under Article 107A(2), courts are bound by principles meant to uphold justice.
Despite the government’s assertions, Kilatu argued that the case raises critical constitutional questions that override parliamentary procedures. "No branch of government is above the constitution," Kilatu asserted, adding that the Speaker and Parliament must be held accountable if they infringe on citizens' rights. He referenced the landmark 1998 case of Augustine Mrema, a former Vunjo MP, who successfully challenged his parliamentary suspension. "The Mrema case set a precedent—if Parliament violates constitutional principles, it must be held accountable," Kilatu said.
The stakes in Mpina's case are high. If the court rules in his favor, it could limit Parliament’s authority to discipline its members, establishing new standards for how parliamentary powers interact with constitutional protections.
Inside the courtroom, tension was palpable as farmers from Kilombero listened intently. Many of them have been affected by the same sugar import scandal that led to Mpina’s accusations against Minister Bashe. The farmers have suffered from declining sugar prices and are hoping that the case will bring accountability to those involved in manipulating the sugar market.
"I am here because we need justice," said Mr. Mzigo wa ndevu, a representative of small-scale sugarcane farmers. "The price of sugarcane has dropped to Sh 95,000 from Sh 108,000 per ton. Farmers are struggling, and we hope that the court’s decision will help restore fairness in the market."
Another sugarcane farmer, Fidea Zambi, echoed her concerns, painting a grim picture of the toll this price drop has taken on her livelihood. “We are barely making ends meet. We work hard, but the government’s lack of control over sugar imports is killing us. How are we supposed to survive when our product’s value keeps falling?” she asked. Zambi added, "The ones benefiting from this sugar permit corruption are sitting comfortably in their offices while we, the farmers, are sinking deeper into poverty. It’s time for accountability."
Mpina's legal team has also raised concerns about several companies that were granted sugar import permits under questionable circumstances. Among them are J SQUARE Investment Group, Yasser Provision Store, Zenj General Merchandise, and Mohamed Enterprises.
These companies, Mpina claims, received permits despite their limited financial capacity or their lack of experience in the sugar trade. "How does a company with a share capital of Sh 1,000,000 get a permit to import 2,500 tons of sugar worth USD 2.5 million?" Mpina asked in a statement. He accused the Ministry of Agriculture and the Sugar Board of issuing permits without proper vetting, raising the specter of corruption and money laundering.
Zenj General Merchandise, which was awarded a permit to import 60,000 tons of sugar, has faced particular scrutiny due to its financial opacity. "Zenj has not submitted financial statements since 2016," Mpina said. "How can such a company be entrusted with handling such large quantities of sugar?" He went on to point out that Zenj’s permit allocation exceeded the combined total given to Tanzania’s five sugar-producing factories, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the entire process.
Mohamed Enterprises, another company involved in the scandal, was also flagged for discrepancies between its declared share capital and its actual financial capacity. "These companies and the government officials who granted them permits must be held accountable," Mpina said outside the courtroom.
He expressed frustration that Minister Bashe, along with Prof. Kenneth Bengesi, the chairman of the Sugar Board, had not stepped down pending the investigation. "The Finance Minister continues to violate regulations by issuing permits illegally while the case is ongoing. How can we expect a fair investigation when those responsible are still in power?" Mpina added, calling for the resignation of those implicated.
The case has not only brought the sugar industry under scrutiny but has also cast a spotlight on how Parliament handles internal disciplinary matters. Speaking on the suspension imposed by Parliament, Mpina said, "I have directed my lawyers to petition the court to compel the accused to step down while investigations continue.
Their arrogance in refusing to appear in court speaks volumes." He expressed concerns that evidence could be tampered with, and deals struck while those accused remain in office. "We are not asking for much—just a fair investigation. The judge has an immense responsibility, and I believe he is doing everything he can to ensure justice is served."
Mpina also took the opportunity to criticize the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), suggesting that its current leadership under Speaker Tulia Ackson could lead Tanzania into conflicts with other nations. He pointed to Kenya as an example of how political accountability should be handled, referencing the country's move to impeach its vice president, Rigathi Gachagua. "Kenya involved the people in the process, and that’s how it should be. Tanzanians deserve the same level of democracy," he said.
With the court’s ruling postponed, all eyes are now on the October 24 hearing, where the outcome could have significant ramifications not only for Luhaga Mpina but also for the integrity of Tanzania's democratic institutions and the livelihoods of its farmers.