Stop groundless propaganda about Tegeta escrow scandal

By Editor

 This week, we again witnessed another drama about the much debated Tegeta escrow account when lawyers representing Harbinder Singh Sethi, issued a press statement warning lawmakers from debating or making any reference about the matter, in the Parliament.

 

Sethi’s legal team claims that since there was a court injunction, which was issued in November 2014 that barred the House from receiving and debating the Tegeta escrow scandal, any attempt to debate, or making reference about the matter is a contempt of court.

 

There’s no doubt that in any serious nation where there’s good governance, we are all required to respect any decision issued by the court of law. In case you disagree with the court’s decision, you are free to appeal to the highest court.

 

 It’s also very clear that Independent Power Tanzania Limited and its purported parent company, Pan Africa Power Solutions Tanzania Limited famously known in its acronym as PAP, have their constitutional rights to seek their rights in any court of law in this country.

 

  When the nation was waiting with bated breath for the Parliamentary probe report on the Tegeta escrow scandal, Harbinder Sing Sethi who is the majority shareholder in PAP and Executive Chairman went to the high court, to seek an injunction restraining the Parliament from receiving and debating the report.

 

 Though, fundamentally, neither the Parliament nor honourable lawmakers were a party to the main suit filed jointly by IPTL and PAP, the High Court finally issued the so called an injunction, which barred the august House from receiving and debating the Tegeta escrow scandal.

 

 Despite the court order, the House proceeded with debate on the Tegeta escrow scandal report as scheduled. If there can be an evidence that all MPs committed an offence, which is contempt of court, then there’s no any evidence that the High Court issued any arrest warrant against our lawmakers.

 

 Former Speaker of the National Assembly, Madam Anne Makinda, consulted the having learnt that PAP has obtained an injunction barring the House from debating the escrow debate, decided to proceed with the debate on Tegeta escrow.

 

 This decision was reached after thorough consultations with the Parliamentary legal team, which strongly advised the former Speaker to proceed with the Tegeta Escrow debate as earlier planned.

 

 To defend the House’s decision to proceed with Tegeta escrow debate, among other things, the Parliamentary legal team quoted the famous lawyer Erskine May on Page 383, which reads: “Subject to the discretion of the Chair, reference may be made in debate in the House to matters awaiting or under adjudication in all civil courts, in so far as such matters relate to matters of national importance such as the national economy, public order or the essentials of life; and that, in exercising its discretion the Chair may not allow reference to such matters if it appears that there’s a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings.”

 

  We are told that the courts of law in Tanzania operate independently without any pressure or interference from any third party. In this case, PAP didn’t prove beyond reasonable doubt whether any debate about Tegeta escrow scandal would really influence the court’s decisions about pending civil suits.

 

  We are also aware that before the court of laws, concrete evidence and wisdom determine the outcome of any case, not the public pressure or the Parliamentary debate. In this case, PAP didn’t prove beyond reasonable doubt about what May termed “real and substantial danger”. But, we do understand that IPTL-PAPA affair was a serious national issue, which not only touches the economy, but also highly dashes the public interests.

 

 What we see here is just a mere perception that any debate about Tegeta Escrow would have affected or influenced the High Court’s decisions about dozens of civil suits about the scandal. In this case, we may say that public and national interests prevailed against any perception about direct interference with pending civil suits on Tegeta escrow scandal.

 

But, above all how does one commit an offence while acting under legal immunity? This is a very significant question, which begs an urgent answer from our legal pundits. When the injunction against the Parliament was issued, first of all, it wasn’t served to anyone, because there was a legal dilemma on whether the High Court acted fairly and rightly—within its jurisdiction. Second, it was argued that when MPs are in the Parliament, conducting their daily business, they have immunity against any legal actions. 

 

 

Constitutional dilemma

 

But, there was another urgent constitutional question on whether the High Court has the legal mandate to gag the parliament, to receive and debate any motion, or parliamentary report about any national issue. We are all aware that the state has three equal pillars, which are the Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislative.

 

 In this case, we witnessed the sharp divisions among the three pillars because the stakes were too high to have a consensus. Until now, no one has ever issued a strong legal amplification on whether the High Court has the legal mandate to ‘gag’ the Parliament. There are those who believe that the court has the legal mandate, while there are also others who question such legal reign.

 

Go back to court, if you can

 

   If IPTL-PAP feels their rights are infringed, they should go back to court to seek another legal clearance. But, warning MPs from debating or making reference about Tegeta Escrow report, while conducting their business is groundless and cheap propaganda.

 

  It’s not the duty of IPTL-PAP to determine whether there has been a contempt of court. It’s the court of law, which has the jurisdiction to determine whether by debating the escrow report, or making any reference, the MPs have indeed committed an offence punishable under the laws of Tanzania.

 

 As a nation, we are tired of this escrow debate and we would like to see actions. We aren’t interested in any unnecessary debate, because this matter was thoroughly tabled and debated in Parliament in November 2014. The Parliament, having satisfied by the report as well as the entire debate, issued its recommendations.

 

 The question we should be asking today is to what extent the Executive has implemented these recommendations. If by asking this question, our MPs are in contempt of court, then that’s another debatable issue. It’s inconceivable to see that some of those who are supposed to be taken to court are still walking freely, squandering public funds, while trying to manipulate public opinions about Tegeta escrow.