IN a dramatic turn of events, the Dar es Salaam City Council on Thursday cast a vote of no confidence against Lord Mayor Isaya Mwita while the case he lodged to challenge his impeachment was still pending at the Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court.
Following the Council’s decision, Mr Mwita was locked out of his office and the official vehicle that had been at his disposal was withdrawn.It was not made clear at the meeting held at Karimjee Hall whether Mr Mwita was no longer the City mayor.
At the end of the proceedings, Mr Mwita maintained that he was still the mayor of the City of Dar es Salaam, alleging that the quorum to remove him from the post had not been attained.
It is alleged that the mayor could be removed from his post in pursuit of the rules on two-thirds vote; that is, 17 members.He expressed his disappointment following a decision to “rob” him of the official vehicle and locking him out of office.
Some members of the opposition party Chadema were heard saying that they would escort him to the office this morning.During the court session, Resident Magistrate Janeth Mtega was yesterday scheduled to deliver her ruling on a request by Mr Mwita for maintaining the “status quo” in that he should not be removed from his position, pending final determination of an application.
However, the magistrate adjourned the session to today as she had not completed preparing the ruling following competing submissions presented by the parties to the matter.
In the matter, Mr Mwita is the applicant, while respondents are the City Council, Regional Commissioner (RC) and Attorney General. Mr Mwita, who was present in court, could not say anything on what happened.
Likewise, his advocate Hekima Mwasipu reserved his comments until the court gives its ruling on the request that was made.The advocate had moved the Court to temporarily restrain the respondents to impeach his client.
He told the court that since the City Council and the RC, the respondents, were in the process of impeaching the Lord Mayor while the case was pending, it would be prudent for the court to justifiably grant the order sought to avoid the matter to be rendered nugatory.
The advocate, for the applicant, also submitted that the grant of the order would enable his client to be afforded the right to be heard, as enshrined under Article 13 (6) (a) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania and that the respondents would not be prejudiced in any way.
