NATIONAL DIALOGUE ON THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT SYSTEM

CENTRE FOR FOREIGN RELATIONS

DAR ES SALAAM

A CONCEPT NOTE

AFRICA’S DISCONTENT WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: IS WITHDRAWAL THE BEST OPTION?

As part of its NATIONAL DIALOGUE PROGRAMME the Centre for Foreign Relations, in collaboration with the Association of Retired Tanzania’s Ambassadors, are organizing  a panel discussion on the topic: AFRICA’S DISCONTENT WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: IS WITHDRAWAL THE BEST OPTION? The discussion will take place on 27^th March, 2014 at the Mwalimu Nyerere Conference Centre at 10 a.m. – 13 p.m.

The discussion will look at the historical background of the International Criminal Court (ICC) focusing on the rationale for the Court’s existence, its establishment process and its comprehensive jurisdiction. At the same time the discussion will look at the Court’s institutional structure focusing on its membership and its organs such as the Assembly of States Parties, the Presidency, the Judicial Divisions, the Office of the Prosecutor and the Registry. The discussion will also dwell on the Court’s functional procedures and analyze its performance so far.

The main debate will be on Africa’s dissatisfaction with the ICC, focusing on the issues and arguments for their dissatisfaction. The discussion will conclude by analyzing whether withdrawal from the ICC is the best option for the Africa’s States Parties. If not, what are the alternative options worth considering?

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Establishment

The International Criminal Court, commonly referred to as the ICC, is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.

The ICC was created by the Rome Statute which was adopted on 17^th July, 1998 by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. The 7 countries that voted against the treaty were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States and Yemen.

The Rome Statute became a binding treaty on 11^th April, 2002, when the number of countries that had ratified it reached 60. The Statute legally came into force on 1^st July, 2002, and the ICC can only prosecute crimes committed after that date. The Court has its headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands, but its proceedings may take place anywhere. It is intended to complement existing national judicial systems, and may only exercise its jurisdiction when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes.

Currently, 122 states are states parties to the Statute of the Court, including all of South America, nearly all of Europe, most of Oceania and more than half of the countries of Africa. A further 31 countries, including Russia, have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute. Three of these states – Israel, Sudan and the United States – have informed the United Nation Secretary General that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, have no legal obligations arising from their former representatives’ signature of the Statute.

Forty one United Nations member states have neither signed nor ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute.

Performance

To date, the Prosecutor has opened investigations into eight situations in Africa: the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC); Uganda; the Central Africa Republic (CAR); Darfur; Sudan; Kenya; Coté d’Ivoire and Mali. The Court’s Pre – Trial Chambers have publicly indicted 36 people. The ICC has issued arrest warrants for 27 individuals and summonses to 9 others. Eight persons are in detention.

Proceedings against 28 are ongoing: ten are at large as fugitives, five have been arrested, but are not in Court’s custody, including one who is appealing an order referring the case against him to national authorities, seven are in the pre – trial phase, another four are at trial, one is appealing his sentence, and one individual’s acquittal is being appealed by the prosecutor. Proceedings against eight have been completed: four have had the charges against them dismissed, one has had the charges against him withdrawn, and three have died before trial.

As of December 2013, the Court’s first trial, the Lubanga trial (Thomas Lubanga Dyilo) in the situation of the DRC is in the appeals phase after the accused was found guilty and sentenced to 14 years in prison and a reparations regime was established. The Katanga – Chui trial (Germain Katanga and Methieu Ngudjolo Chui) regarding the DRC was concluded in May 2012. Mr. Ngudjolo Chui was acquitted and released. The Prosecutor has appealed the acquittal. The decision regarding Mr. Katanga is due to be announced on 7^th February, 2014. The Bemba trial (Jean – Pierre Bemba) regarding the CAR is ongoing with the defence presenting its evidence.

The fourth trial in the case of Ruto – Sang (The Vice President of Kenya, Mr. William Ruto and a Kenyan journalist, Joshua Arap Sang) regarding the situation in Kenya, began on 10^th September, 2013. The Kenyatta trial (that of President Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya) will begin on 5^th February, 2014. Another trial Chamber for the Banda trial (Abdallah Banda Nourain) in the situation of Darfur, Sudan, has been established with the trial scheduled to begin in May 2014. The decision on the confirmation of charges in the Laurent Gbagbo (the former President of Coté d’Ivoire) in the Coté d’Ivoire situation is pending after hearings took place in February 2013 and after the decision was adjourned to give the Prosecutor more time to present compelling evidence. The confirmation of charges hearing in the Ntaganda case (Bosco Ntaganda) in the DRC situation is scheduled to begin in February 2014.

AFRICA’S DISSATISFACTION WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Africa’s discontent with the ICC started immediately following the ICC’s indictment of African leaders. In 2009 the ICC indicted the Sudan’s President, Omar al – Bashir, for genocide and war crimes in Darfur. Immediately the African Union asked the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to quash the ICC charges against Bashir on the grounds that they were inhibiting the peace process in Darfur. When the request was refused by the UNSC the AU requested that Bashir’s prosecution should be deferred by one year in accordance with Article 16 of the Rome Statute, on the argument that he was instrumental in the peace process in Darful. This request was also not accepted by the UNSC.

In March 2011 Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto (who latter became President and Vice President respectively, following the 4^th March, 2013 general elections) were indicted by the ICC and charged with committing crimes against humanity following the 2007 – 2008 Post – Election Violence. On 23^rd January 2012, the Pre – Trial Chamber issued a Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, finding that there was sufficient evidence against the accused to allow the matter to proceed to trial.

Initially, following their indictment, both Kenyatta and Ruto made a point of officially cooperating with the Court, showing up in The Hague when required. It is critical to note that Kenyatta’s and Ruto’s indictment became an African issue only when they were elected president and vice – president, respectively, after the 4^th March, 2013 general elections. The implication here is that the Kenyan President would be the first sitting head of state to be prosecuted in the international court. This created a problem to African leaders, fearing that the Kenyatta’s prosecution would set a serious precedence with far – reaching implications for other African leaders.

At the national level, on 6^th September 2013, the Kenyan Parliament voted in favour of a motion urging the government to urgently undertake measures to immediately withdraw its membership from the Rome Statute. It was on the basis of the Parliament’s vote that the Government of Kenya requested the African Union Commission (AUC) to convene an Extra – Ordinary session of the African Union (AU) to deliberate on the Africa’s relationship with the ICC.

The Kenya’s request to hold an Extra – Ordinary Summit was endorsed by the AU Ministerial Consultative Meeting held in New York on 27^th September, 2013 in the margins of the 68^th Session of United Nation General Assembly (UNGA). The Ministerial meeting called on the AU member states to continue providing a strong political support to the Government of Kenya for the deferral for one year of the proceedings initiated against the President and the Vice President of Kenya by the UNSC in accordance with Article 16 of the Rome Statute.

At the continental level, the AUC convened the Extra – Ordinary Summit on 12^th October, 2013 amid speculation that African states parties might withdraw en mass from the ICC. No specific recommendation on withdrawal was tabled during the session. However, it hovered in the air as the option of last resort.

Among the specific decisions made by the Extra – Ordinary Summit included the following:

-                     That no charges should commence or continue before any International Court or Tribunal against any serving AU Head of State or Government or anybody acting or entitled to act in such capacity during their term of office;

-                     That the trials of President Kenyatta and Deputy President Ruto should be suspended until they complete their terms of office;

-                     That Kenya should send a letter to the UNSC requesting for deferral, in conformity  with Article 16 of the Rome Statute, of the proceedings against the President and Deputy President of Kenya;

-                     To request the ICC to postpone the trial of President Uhuru Kenyatta and suspend the proceedings against Deputy President William Ruto until such time as the UNSC considers the request by Kenya for deferral; and

-                     That President Uhuru Kenyatta should not appear before the ICC until such time as the concerns raised by the AU and its Member States have been adequately addressed by the UNSC and the ICC.

At the international level, neither the ICC nor the UNSC heeded to the AU’s decisions.

CRITICAL QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

The following are some of the critical questions for discussion:

1.          Taking into consideration the objectives of the ICC’s existence, are the African leaders’ concerns with the ICC a true representation of the feelings of the ordinary Africans?

2.          What is it exactly that the African leaders are complaining against the ICC?

3.           Is the Rome Statute fundamentally flawed from the start on the issue of prosecuting sitting heads of state? If so, what should be done to rectify the situation?

4.          African leaders have decided to use the AU as the forum to discuss their grievances against the ICC. Is the AU an appropriate platform to discuss their discontents with the ICC?

5.          In the case of Kenyatta and Ruto the African States have recommended that their cases should be held in East Africa rather than in The Hague. Is this a call for a mere change of VENUE or a call for an alternative JUDICIAL MECHANISM for the prosecution?

6.          Given the fact that all Africa’s decisions and requests have not been heeded to by neither the ICC nor the UNSC, what is the way forward for Africa, particularly for the African States parties to the ICC? Is withdrawal the best option?

7.          What is the best way for the ICC to intervene to protect the victims in Africa amid the accusations that it is targeting the accused?

FORMAT FOR THE DISCUSSION

The discussion will be introduced by a group of three Panellists. The first will cover the ICC’s establishment process and the rationale for its existence. The second will focus on the Court’s jurisdiction, its institutional structure, as well as its functional procedures and its performance so far. The third Panellist will deal with the issue of African states’ discontent with the ICC, looking at the issues and the arguments involved before focusing on the way forward.

An open discussion will follow after the three presentations by the Panellists. The whole discussion will be co-chaired by a representative from the Centre for Foreign Relations (CFR) and a representative from the Association of Retired Tanzania’s Ambassadors (ARTA).

  

** _______________ **

  

TAMKO LA TANZANIA KWENYE MAZUNGUMZO KUHUSU MGOGORO WA ZIWA NYASA

Mwenyekiti wa Jopo la Usuluhishi Rais Mstaafu wa Msumbiji Mhe. Joachim Chissano akifungua mazungumzo baina ya Tanzania na Malawi kuhusu mgogoro wa mpaka wa Ziwa Nyasa jijini Maputo Msumbiji.

Mazungumzo ya usuluhishi wa mgogoro wa mpaka baina ya Tanzania na Malawi kwenye Ziwa Nyasa yameanza leo Jijini Maputo, Msumbiji kwa kuzikutanisha pande zote mbili za mgogoro huo. 

Mazungumzo hayo yanayofanyika chini ya Jopo la Usuluhishi linaloongozwa na Rais Mstaafu wa Msumbiji Mhe. Joachim Chissano akisaidiwa na Mhe. Thabo Mbeki Rais Mstaafu wa Afrika ya Kusini na Mhe. Festus Mogae Rais Mstaafu wa Botswana yamewapa nafasi pande zote mbili kutoa tamko rasmi kabla ya usuluhishi kuanza. 

Ujumbe wa Tanzania kwenye mazungumzo hayo yanoyotarajia kuchukua siku mbili umeongozwa na Mhe. Bernard K. Membe, Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje na Ushirikiano wa Kimataifa, Mhe. Anna K. Tibaijuka, Waziri wa Ardhi Nyumba na Maendeleo ya Makazi, Mhe. Frederick M. Werema, Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali, Dr. David S. Mayunga, Naibu Katibu Mkuu Wizara ya Ardhi na wataalamu wengine kutoka taasisi mbalimbali za Serikali.

Aidha ujumbe wa Tanzania kwenye mazungumzo haya umejumuisha Wabunge wawili kutoka Kanda ya Ziwa ambao ni Mhe. Kapt. John Komba na Mhe. Deo Filikunjombe.

Chini ni tamko rasmi la Tanzania kama lilivyowasilishwa na Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje na Ushirikiano wa Kimataifa Mhe. Bernard K. Membe

STATEMENT BY HON. BERNARD K. MEMBE, TANZANIAN MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION DURING THE MEDIATION WITH THE HIGH LEVEL MEDIATION TEAM OF THE TANZANIA- MALAWI BOARDER DISPUTE

(Transcribed…/)

SALUTATIONS:

Your Excellency President Joachim Chissano Chairperson of the High Level Mediation Team,

Your excellences,

I bring warm greetings from the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania under the leadership of our President His Excellency Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete.

We would also like to thank the high level Mediation Team,  for the wonderful hospitality that you have accorded to us since our arrival here in Maputo, Mozambique. My team and I have faith in you and your esteemed panel and that in the end we hope to resolve this problem.

Mr. Chair

My colleague from Malawi, has maintained by the authority of Article I (2) of the 1890 Anglo-German Agreement that the boarder between our two sister countries is in the shorelines. Now this is disputable. We have taken trouble to put in writing a few times to the High Level Mediation Team.

And today, in this meeting, we will be able to show, demonstrate and prove that in fact the only logical way to resolve this crisis between Malawi and Tanzania is to put that boarder on the median line.

….because even common sense can sense, that this lake was not man made, it was not made by the Government of Malawi for its people. It was created by our Almighty God for all of us, and the word us is Mozambique, Tanzania and Malawi.

There can be no person on this earth, who can take ownership of, saying all this is mine, particularly towards the international body of water that divides the three countries.

You just cannot have a claim to say all this water is mine. This is a common heritage; it is a heritage of three peoples from the time of its creation to date despite the intervention of the 1890 Anglo-German Treaty. It is a common heritage, and if you want, it is a triple heritage given by God for these three peoples to enjoy.

They have been doing so, they are doing so and they will continue to do so. Because it is their waters.

The best practice has shown, that the 1890 Agreement Article I (2), ….. were not conclusive,

…..and this team of expert that I bring with me today will just confirm that the 1890 of Anglo-German treaty article 1 (2), were not conclusive at all. The only article that makes conclusion and that must be taken seriously is Article VI…. of the Anglo German Treaty.

Article 6 raises the conviction that the two powers must sit, taking into the account the local conditions…

….And Chair let me tell you something that you may not know, the debate in 1890 was the hottest debate of the century. It was not easy to agree on the 1890 article II and I.

It just wasn’t easy. People had brains at that time. And the only caveat that they put in order to move forward, was to produce article VI in order to give powers of the then at that time, and of the current time to be able to sit and make rectification that fits the local conditions. Hadn’t there been an article six, we wouldn’t be here.

And this Article VI had been practiced; it was practiced in 1901, when the Songwe Dispute came about. It was practiced in 1914 in Lake Jipe, even after the signing of this treaty, which is controversial.

But elsewhere it was also practiced; …it was practiced in the 1958 by the Aglo Portuguese Agreement after the 1890, which shows you that the Article VI is so fundamental, so fundamental indeed that the powers had to form the joint boundary commission all the way to rectify the intolerable, and that is what we need. And this is what we ought to legitimately do.

We would have done this in the 1960s but how could we have done so when our two leaders of the two powers, that is Malawi and Tanzania, were caught up in their ideological liberation wars. While Tanzania was supporting the liberation wars in South Africa, the leader of Malawi was embarrassing apartheid in South Africa and we would never have anticipated that the two Presidents would seat together to resolve this crisis.

And then came the rhetoric’s, now my brother is quoting President Nyerere emphatically, I will produce an answer here, but before I do so, let me remind the chair that President Banda during the very same time, made very very explosive statements on the boundary not only did he mention the boundary is on the shoreline of Lake Malawi, far from it, he went beyond it, to even claim Ruvuma, Songea, Mbeya, Njombe, as his area, as this boundary of Malawi.

We don’t hear them now say that after this dispute they will now come to really undermine the statement of President Banda claiming all this area as their establishment. They don’t mention that. Why? ..because they sat down and said these political statements can not make boundaries. The political statements of leaders cannot make boundaries, but they are very selective they pick on what Nyerere said, not on what President Banda said.

(With chuckles) I wanted to ask my friend after this, are we going then to ask about Mbeya, Ruvuma, Songea, or you have negated them?

….But let me come to the answers to this question,  cause the issue here is the statements made by the political leaders or senior officials both before or after independence, give title to Malawi of the whole lake. I will read to make this point for my friend.

Your Excellencies,

The answer to this question is in the negative, our position and that is Tanzania’s Position, is established on the principle of international law that unilateral statements made by senior political leaders are not legally binding upon the parties. 

This principle, was established by the International Court of Justice in the boundary dispute between Burkina Faso and the Republic of Mali as it is reported in the ICJ reports of 1996 in para 40 is relevant. 

“Since no agreement of this kind of conclusion between the parties, the chamber finds that there are no grounds to interpret the declaration made by Mali’s head of state on the 11th of April 1975 as a unilateral act with legal implication in regard to the present case.”

Therefore the Tanzanian position is that boundaries are not affirmed by statements by senior government officials, they are negotiated and agreed by way of treaties. The mandatory procedures, envisaged by the provision of the Article VI of the Anglo-German Agreement cannot be abrogated by the statements of senior political leaders. These conditions mandatorily require rectification of the boundary by agreement and in accordance of the local requirements.

This is the answer to the statements repeatedly put forward by my colleague with the respect of the statement made by our late President Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere.

…Now…

As I have said, we will put the case, we will re iterate our position of whether the boundary required rectification as provided for under the Article VI of the 1890 Anglo – German Agreement.

We will put our case clear of where the demarcation of the boundary was determined by Article I(2) of the 1890 Agreement.

We will again emphasize our answers on whether the boundaries is within the shoreline or the median line and we have said it is right in the middle of the lake...... and the argument here is very clear. 

The 1964 AU declaration does not stop and let me repeat does not stop any country which is in dispute with its boarders to pursue this matter just because the declaration say you must respect individual boarders.

You have more than 21 cases at the AU of boarder disputes …..that the countries must seat down, and negotiate these issues. So the 1964 kind of declaration does not close the doors to resolve the boarder disputes by peaceful means.

As I have said, we have a lot to do today, and I end here for my statement with a quote on AU’s declaration.

Imetolewa na:

Kitengo cha Mawasiliano ya Serikali kwa Umma

Wizara ya Mambo ya Nje na Ushirikiano wa Kimataifa

Binti Mfalme wa Sweden awasili nchini kwa ziara ya kikazi

Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje na Ushirikiano wa Kimataifa, Mhe. Bernard K. Membe (Mb.) akimpokea Binti Mfalme wa Sweden, Mtukufu Victoria Lugrid Alice Desiree mara baada ya kuwasili kwenye Uwanja wa Ndege wa Kimataifa wa Julius Kambarage Nyerere, nchini Tanzania kwa ziara ya kikazi ya siku tatu kuanzia Tarehe 19 hadi 21 Machi, 2014. 

Mhe. Membe akiwa katika mazungumzo na Binti Mfalme wa Sweden, Mtukufu Victoria Lugrid Alice Desiree mara baada ya kuwasili nchini.

Mkurugenzi wa Idara ya Ulaya na Amerika katika Wizara ya Mambo ya Nje na Ushirikiano wa Kimataifa, Balozi Dora Msechu kwa pamoja na wajumbe walioambatana na Binti Mfalme Victoria Ludrid Alice Desiree nchini wakifuatilia kwa karibu mazungumzo kati ya Mhe. Membe na Binti Mfalme wa Sweden, Mtukufu Victoria (hawapo Pichani).

Mkurugenzi Msaidizi wa Idara ya Ulaya na Amerika katika Wizara ya Mambo ya Nje na Ushirikiano wa Kimataifa, Bi. Victoria Mwakasege pamoja na Afisa Mambo ya Nje Bi. Tunsume Mwangolombe wakati wa mazungumzo kati ya Waziri Membe na Binti Mfalme Victoria Ludrid Alice Desiree (hawapo pichani)

 

Picha na Reginald Philip.

PRESS RELEASE

H.E. Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete, President of the United Republic of Tanzania has sent a congratulatory message to H.E Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland on the occasion of the National Day of Ireland on 17^th March 2014.

The message reads as follows.

“His Excellency Michael D. Higgins,

  The President of Ireland,

  Dublin, IRELAND.

Your Excellency and Dear colleague,

It is once again my pleasure and privilege to extend to you and through you to the Government and people of Ireland my heartfelt congratulations on the occasion of your country’s National Day.

Tanzania cherishes the good relations and co-operation that happily exist between our two countries. On this historic day, I take the opportunity to reaffirm my country’s commitment and desire to continue working with you and your Government in strengthening further the existing ties of friendship and co-operation for the mutual benefit of our two countries and peoples.

Please accept, Your Excellency, my best wishes for your continued good health and prosperity for the people of Ireland”.

ISSUED BY: THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION, DAR ES SALAAM

17^TH MARCH, 2014

WAZIRI MEMBE AKUTANA NA MABALOZI WA NCHI ZA KIAFRIKA WANACHAMA WA JUMUIYA YA MADOLA

Mhe. Bernard Membe, Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje wa Tanzania kwenye mazungumzo na Mabalozi wa Nchi za Kiafrika Wanachama wa Jumuiya ya Madola Jijini London, Uingereza. 

Balozi wa Tanzania nchini Uingereza Mhe. Peter Kallaghe akimkaribisha Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje wa Tanzania na Mwenyekiti wa Kikosi Kazi cha Mawaziri wa Nchi Wanachama wa Jumuiya ya Madola Mhe.Bernard Membe kwenye mazungumzo mjini London, Uingereza.

Mhe. Bernard Membe (Mb.), Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje na Ushirikiano wa Kimataifa ametoa wito kwa Nchi za Kiafrika Wanachama wa Jumuiya ya Madola kuunganisha nguvu na kuwa na sauti moja itakayotetea maslahi ya nchi za kiafrika kwenye jumuiya hiyo.

Mhe. Membe aliyasema hayo alipokutana na Mabalozi wa Nchi 12 za Kiafrika wanaowakilisha nchi zao kwenye Jumuiya ya Madola pembezoni mwa Mkutano wa Kikosi Kazi cha Mawaziri cha jumuiya hiyo kilichofanyika Jijini London Uingereza tarehe 13-14 Machi 2014.

Kwenye mazungumzo yao Mhe. Membe aliwakumbusha Mabalozi hao chimbuko la jumuiya hiyo na ushiriki wa nchi za kiafrika ili kutetea maslahi ya Waafrika na hatimaye kuvuna matunda ya ushiriki wa Waafrika kwenye Jumuiya ya Madola.

“Kama wanachama kutoka Bara la Afrika, ni wajibu wetu kushikamana na hata pale mwanachama mmoja anapotolewa au anapowekewa vikwazo vya ushiriki, tuungane na kuhakikisha mwanachama huyo anaondolewa vikwazo na hatimaye kurudi kwenye jumuiya. Tusipofanya hivyo hata sisi tutakuwa na tatizo” alisema Mhe. Membe.

Aliwaasa kuwa na sauti moja katika kutetea haki za ushiriki wa nchi za Kiafrika ndani ya jumuiya hiyo. Alisema namba ya nchi za Afrika kwenye jumuiya hiyo ni kubwa na hivyo ushiriki wa Waafrika lazima uwe wa kushindo.

Alisisitiza kuwa na sauti moja ya Waafrika kutakemea masuala yanayokuja kama shinikizo kutoka wanachama wa Nchi za Magharibi kama vile ndoa za jinsia moja, ambayo yanagusa dini, tamaduni, mila na desturi za Kiafrika. Alisema upepo wa shinikizo hilo unavuma kwa kasi kana kwamba kukubaliana na masuala hayo kutaondoa umaskini barani Afrika. Nchi za Kiafrika kwenye Jumuiya hiyo zina wajibu wa kushiriki kikamilifu kwa kusimamia agenda zitakazoleta maendeleo barani Afrika.

Ili kufanikisha wajibu huo, Mhe. Membe aliwahimiza Mabalozi hao kushiriki  kwenye chaguzi mbalimbali za jumuiya, kutoa taarifa kwa Wakuu wa Nchi na Serikali zao kutoka Makao Makuu ya Sekretarieti ya Jumuiya hiyo yaliyopo London Uingereza na mwisho kuhakikisha wanashiriki kikamilifu na kutoa sauti ya pamoja kwenye shuguli mbalimbali za Jumuiya badala ya kusubiri wengine wafanye maamuzi kwa niaba yao.

Kwa upande wao, mabalozi hao walimpongeza Mhe. Membe kwa kuchaguliwa kuwa Mwenyekiti wa Kikosi Kazi cha Mawaziri cha jumuiya hiyo kwa kipindi cha miaka miwili. Aidha walisifu jitihada za Tanzania kutetea maslahi ya nchi za Kiafrika wanachama wa jumuiya hiyo. 

Kwa upande mwingine walilalamikia uongozi wa Sekretarieti ya Jumuiya ya Madola kwa kutoshirikiana na mabalozi hao hususan kwenye maandalizi ya Vikao vya Wakuu wa Nchi na Serikali wanachama au baada ya vikao hivyo. Waliongeza kuwa kero za kiutendaji zinafanyiwa kazi juu juu tu na badala yake zinazua kero kubwa zaidi. Hivyo walimuomba Mhe. Membe kuwasaidia kwa kupitia Vikao vya Kikosi Kazi cha Mawaziri kuondoa changamoto hizo.

Ndani ya Jumuiya ya Madola kuna nchi za Kiafrika 18 ambapo 12 kati ya hizo zilizoshiriki kwenye mkutano huo ni; Mauritius, Cameroon, Seychelles, Namibia, South Africa, Uganda, Kenya, Mozambique, Ghana, Lesotho, Zambia na Tanzania. Jumuiya ya Madola ina jumla ya nchi 53.

Imetolewa na:

Kitengo cha Mawasiliano ya Serikali kwa Umma

Wizara ya Mambo ya Nje na Ushirikiano wa Kimataifa