Msumi Commission next best thing, to know where the pitfalls were

By Editor

Editorial cartoon

President Jakaya Kikwete has put to effect his parliamentary vow in an address in November last year that he would form a commission of inquiry to look into how Operation Tokomeza was conducted, and if there was clear breach of the law, to get those indicted by the commission to answer charges in court.


The late Friday announcement by Chief Secretary Ombeni Sefue that the President had appointed retired principal judge Hamisi Msumi to chair the commission shows that the President intends that the commission is sufficiently empowered in the legal aspect.

It also has two retired judges on its panel, to ensure that various shades of sentiments are covered.

The heat generated by the often shocking conduct of Operation Tokomeza has long since died down, and except at the parliamentary level, it is hard to say how many opinion makers were still awaiting the formation of a full fledged law commission in that regard.

The commission is not patterned on the committee of inquiry formed by MPs who sit on the relevant parliamentary committee, and instead it seeks to find out what the law says, how the operation was designed and conducted.

The concern with individuals is there, but not just with evidence on what they did, but what the law says, what ministerial directives specified, and how the errors came about.

With the relevant ministers having been sacked from their posts, it meant that the law was clear on the matter and as they failed to get it observed, they were politically responsible for what happened.

But this sphere needs to be checked by the commission of inquiry, as it is unclear how far ministers are in charge of police operations for instance, or its commanders on the ground and above those at district and regional level.

Thus the Minister for Home Affairs might just be informed who is the next Regional Police Commander for this or that region; he hardly appoints.

One parameter about ministerial responsibility which the commission might just bring out plainly is that it is easier for politicians of all board to blame ministers when things go wrong, but one thing that autonomous bureaucracies of various sorts dislike is ministerial ‘interference.’

That is for instance the case in how parastatals are mismanaged, for bureaucratic groups have insisted since 1982 that ‘professionals’ should be left to run parastatal organisations without being pushed around by ‘politicians,’ who this model of analysis sees as untrained, rudimentary, party cadres, etc.
This means ‘professionals’ organise any deals they want; the minister stays put.

When one looks closely at what the parliamentary committee said was the manner in which the various herders’ groups were being removed from protected areas, what emerges is that tactics often prevalent in military camps were taken up as terror methods against invaders of protected areas.

Only that they added some material that isn’t typical of army camps but of street ruffians, like rape and sodomy – for the simple reason that there was no law above them, having been tasked with spreading fear.

They wanted to make it plain to stubborn herders that protected areas are government territory, and if one invades anything can happen – anything, absolutely, without let or hindrance.

It might not be easy to reconcile that with the law, or to realistically explain it. The only thing now left for us is to keep our fingers crossed waiting for truth to be told by the newly formed presidential commission. 

SOURCE: GUARDIAN ON SUNDAY