Mpina’s forced retraction and the praise directed toward Dr. Nchemba highlight a missed chance for meaningful debate on a contract poised to impact Tanzania’s role in the global economy. Photo: Courtesy
By Adonis Byemelwa
Dodoma — The return of Kisesa MP, Luhaga Mpina, to Parliament yesterday ignited a fiery debate, drawing focus to Tanzania's controversial agreement with DP World over the management of Dar es Salaam’s port operations.
Back in the chamber after completing a 15-session suspension, Mpina raised serious questions over the DP World contract, including claims that the Dubai-based company had begun collecting taxes—a claim swiftly challenged by Finance Minister Dr. Mwigulu Nchemba.
Speaking on the 2025/26 National Development Plan and Budget Framework proposals, Mpina took the floor to question why key aspects of the DP World agreement had not been tabled before Parliament.
He cited a lack of transparency over the company’s operations and agreements and urged that all Host Government Agreements (HGA) related to the deal be laid out for review.
He also criticized what he described as a lack of accountability in the division of revenue between the government and DP World, challenging why legislators had not been allowed to scrutinize such a crucial contract.
However, his remarks triggered a swift rebuttal from Finance Minister Dr. Nchemba, who asserted that only the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) has the mandate to collect taxes.
He claimed that Mpina’s assertion about DP World’s tax collection was not only false but misleading to both Parliament and the public.
Dr. Nchemba emphasized that DP World was only operating within its scope, which had boosted revenue collection to an unprecedented Sh1.23 trillion.
The exchange did not end there. Deputy Speaker Musa Azan Zungu intervened, effectively forcing Mpina to retract his statement. In response, Mpina clarified that he had intended to refer to service charges or fees levied by DP World rather than government taxes.
Zungu seized the moment to commend Dr. Nchemba for his vigilance and sharp response, praising his ability to swiftly correct what he labeled a misleading narrative.
However, this altercation cast a shadow on the larger issue. Mpina’s criticism had extended beyond mere semantics to a significant call for transparency in the DP World contract.
His attempt to scrutinize the lack of legislative oversight over the deal—a matter with far-reaching implications for Tanzanian sovereignty and public interest—was effectively sidelined.
Despite the gravity of his concerns, Parliament chose instead to focus narrowly on his choice of words, resulting in his forced retraction and a public admonishment.
In effect, the focus shifted from the substantive issue of DP World’s role in Tanzania’s port management to a minute technicality over terminology.
This episode highlights a larger issue within Parliament: critical voices questioning the government’s handling of major international contracts may be stifled or deflected over procedural missteps, rather than having their concerns addressed substantively.
Mpina’s questioning of the opaque nature of the DP World agreement—a deal that potentially affects Tanzania’s economic sovereignty and resource control—was diluted to a linguistic misstep, casting doubt on the willingness of Parliament to engage with serious questions of accountability.
The incident raises critical questions about the future of Tanzania’s legislative oversight. With Zungu’s praise of Dr. Nchemba’s quick rebuttal ringing in the chamber, the issue of public access to the DP World contract was effectively left unanswered.
By prioritizing decorum over depth, Parliament may inadvertently signal that challenging major decisions—particularly those with significant implications for Tanzanian resources—come at the risk of being publicly reprimanded rather than heard.
As Tanzania continues to forge strategic partnerships, transparent legislative scrutiny is necessary. For many, Mpina’s forced retraction and the accolades directed toward Dr. Nchemba reflect a missed opportunity to engage in robust debate on a contract that stands to shape Tanzania’s future in the global economy.
This moment may serve as a poignant reminder that, within the walls of Parliament, attention to language should not eclipse the weight of substantive concerns surrounding national interests.