Hon. Luhaga Joelson Mpina (born 5 May 1975) is a CCM politician and Member of Parliament for Kisesa constituency since 2005. He served as the Minister of Livestock and Fisheries for 3 years in the Magufuli cabinet. Currently, Hon. Mpina has been barred from parliamentary duties for 15 sittings until November this year.
According to Speaker Hon. Tulia Ackson, the punishment is within parliamentary Standing Orders, allowing the barring of an errant MP convicted by the Parliamentary Committee on Privileges, ethics, and Powers for 15 to 20 sittings. The House unanimously opted for a 15-sitting ban, which immediately led to his departure from the parliamentary buildings.
The embattled MP has been CCM’s Most Valued Player, consistently fighting against corruption and other vices. No CCM MP has risked as much as Hon. Mpina by being a whistle-blower against the government he serves.
He has demonstrated dedication and an intrepid spirit, which is rare in CCM, known for promoting hypocrisy, and cheerleaders, and instilling fear in those who deviate from the party line. This article explores Hon. Mpina’s persona, and his fierce critics, and assesses the validity of some of his allegations.
Also, Read: Freeman Mbowe Has a Valid Point to be Heard, But Where Is the Truth?
Hon. Luhaga Joelson Mpina carries a heavy burden, with critics frequently highlighting his three-year tenure as a cabinet minister during President Dr John Pombe Magufuli’s draconian rule. They argue that he did not exhibit the dragon-slayer attitude he now displays.
Critics conclude that Hon. Mpina’s current outspokenness stems from resentment over being snubbed for a cabinet appointment, suggesting that had he been appointed, he wouldn’t be criticizing the government he once served.
He is now questioning everything out of grudge and anger, seeing that he has been left in the political cold. I do not subscribe to those who say Mpina’s conduct is informed by being thrown into the wilderness. Since Mpina is still a CCM MP, he is not truly in the opposition despite causing similar political damage from within. Only those in the opposition qualify to be considered in the wilderness.
Mpina has been attacking cabinet ministers, accusing some of incompetence and others of flouting procedures and laws. He has frequently clashed with the Minister of Finance, Dr. Mwigulu Nchemba, with their legendary duels well documented in the Hansard.
Lately, Mpina has opened a new front regarding sugar imports involving the Ministry of Agriculture. According to various outlets, Mpina was furious that the entire process of procuring services from sugar importers was soaked in deliberate favouritism.
He questioned why one company linked to a former CCM politician was allocated 60% of all the sugar cargo to be brought into the country. Mpina claimed that residents in his Kisesa constituency woke up in the wee hours to queue and buy one kilo of sugar at Tshs 10,000/=.
Before the sugar scarcity, the average price per kilogram was Tshs 2,500/=. In Kisesa, the price skyrocketed to four times that amount, reaching Tshs 10,000/=.
Mpina brought his complaint to the speaker, alleging that the agriculture minister had lied to Parliament about the sugar importation. Before the House Speaker instructed the relevant committee to address his allegations, Mpina took the matter to the court of public opinion and held a press conference to reveal everything.
That provoked the wrath of the Speaker who claimed Mpina had insubordinated her and had divulged parliamentary documents to the public contrary to the rules. She called the relevant parliamentary committee to summon Mpina and sort out the whole saga.
The committee reviewed Mpina’s case, and he faced questioning before the Augusta House committee. The press conference appeared to be the final straw. Most committee members questioned why Mpina took Parliamentary documents public, against Standing Orders.
Read: Reviewing Ministerial Powers in House Demolitions: Legal Boundaries and Remedies
Mpina argued that the Standing Orders did not override his constitutional rights to free speech and expression. Unamused, the committee recommended punishment. Consequently, the House suspended him for 15 sittings without leave. Mpina left the Parliamentary buildings immediately, with his punishment lasting until November this year.
What Are The Real Issues Facing Hon. Mpina?
It appears CCM’s intolerance to dissent is growing, despite existing laws and campaign rhetoric. Mpina, a whistle-blower, asserted his rights to self-expression before the Parliamentary Committee, stating they couldn’t be overridden by Standing Orders.
Interestingly, the Committee ignored his defence and declared him guilty. They didn’t demonstrate how sharing documents impeded their work or the Speaker’s duties. It seems no harm was caused by his press conference. Hence, neither the Speaker nor the Committee had a “locus standi,” as they were not affected. Public interest should always be protected and preserved.
The Speaker, keen to uncover the truth behind Mpina’s allegations, might have appreciated his pressure to ensure accountability. Even if executive pressure aimed to dismiss the complaint, public attention could have limited her interference, assuming her intent was to protect sugar consumers.
However, if her goal was to shield the agricultural minister and dismiss Mpina’s complaint, she would likely be displeased with public exposure. This raises questions about the Speaker’s true allegiance: was she committed to justice or involved in a cover-up?
Her ruling to report Mpina to the relevant parliamentary committee removes any shadow of doubt about whether the Speaker was interested in his complaint. Mpina took the matter to the public due to a lack of faith in the Speaker’s ability to do the right thing. The Speaker was aghast to learn that Mpina had actually expressed a vote of no confidence in her ability to address official graft under her watch when he took the matter to public opinion.
With that visceral knowledge, the Speaker was nursing a grudge against Mpina, and she struck him where it hurts most—in the pocket. That 15-sitting suspension means Mpina will miss his hefty allowances, and the writing is on the wall: shape in, or you will soon be shipped out of CCM.
Her ruling to report Mpina to the relevant parliamentary committee removes any shadow of doubt about whether the Speaker was interested in his complaint. Mpina took the matter to the public forum out of a lack of faith in the Speaker doing the right thing. The Speaker was aghast to learn Mpina had actually expressed a vote of no confidence in her ability to address official graft under her watch when he took the matter to public opinion.
With that visceral knowledge, the Speaker was nursing a grudge against Mpina, and she struck him where it hurts most—in the pocket. Those 15 sittings mean Mpina will miss his hefty allowances, and the writing is on the wall: shape up, or you will soon be shipped out of CCM.
To me, the most important question in this saga is: What is the Parliament telling us? Are standing orders above whistleblowing laws and constitutional principles? It is a question that begs for an answer. As for the Speaker, personalizing official matters tends to pulverize logic and common sense. This is a weakness she must address because it questions her competence to run the Augusta House. Allowing personal grudges to cloud her judgment has brought the House into disrepute.
Where Standing Orders conflict with the constitution and statutes, as rightly pointed out by Mpina, the House is duty-bound to overlook its own mess created by the Orders. That is wisdom. To rule otherwise is to punish dissent, which is crucial in any development setting.
Mpina’s actions to date resemble Rev. Mtikila’s call for exhuming Horace Kolimba for toxicological testing. As the resident magistrate court rightly pointed out, the burden of proof of wrongdoing rests with the accuser. Fishing expeditions regarding the death of the late President Dr John Pombe Magufuli are regrettable.
Mpina needs to learn that making wild accusations without proof is counterproductive. By suggesting Dr Magufuli’s death involved foul play and requesting an exhumation for toxicological testing, Mpina confirmed his lack of evidence. This scattergun approach is ultimately a waste.
Given these tenuous circumstances, the best strategy is to back off. Insinuating a political assassination without concrete evidence may have been the last nail in his political coffin. It’s hard to see him resurrecting his tarnished political career.
He seems lost in grieving for his former boss. My advice to him is: move on, as life is precious and meant for the living, not the departed. He should immediately stop wasting his time on implausible conspiracy theories.
