This year, outgoing MPs were paid their terminal benefits prior to the dissolving of the Parliament. This has raised concerns to some of the voters that it may interfere with fair and free elections. Do you think MP’s benefits ought to be paid after the 2005 general elections?


YES. I think, in order to have free and fair elections, terminal benefits for MPs would best have been paid after the elections. MPs are human beings and most of them want to retain their constituencies, therefore some of them are bound to be tempted to use the money as takrima to voters. This will definitely create a non-level playground during the elections, taking into consideration that some of the MPs are new entrants and have less financial resources.
Killian Mgolo – WEO.

NO. I think paying MPs before the elections is just a fair thing. This is because they deserve their terminal benefits and they are paid in accordance with the laws that govern the giving of benefits. It is just a speculation that some may abuse their terminal funds, but basically that is their right and they are supposed to receive it before they step down. A good number of MPs have announced that they won’t contest for seats in the coming general elections, what about them?
Immaculate Japhet – Teacher.

YES. It is not fair to pay MPs while the elections are still far away. I am saying this because in the first place all other retirees are paid after they have completely stepped down. We have examples such as teachers, civil servants and even the former EAC employees who haven’t been paid their terminal benefits since 1977. Why then should the MPs be paid before hand? This could have an element of interference during the elections, as these MPs will be more equipped in terms of financial resources than new entrants.
Millard Amos – Politician.

YES. I think for MPs it is not fair to be paid before the elections are over. This is because most of them re-contest for their seats and are supposed to do a lot of campaigns. We all know that during campaigns financial resources are needed; these will have them, but what about the new entrants? This would definitely deny an equal right for the new ones. What I think is good for a free and fair election is to have equity, in terms of financial resources, and other facilities. If that is the case, then let the new entrants be given a subsidy.
Mohammed Y. Omari – Engineer.

Compiled by Timothy Kitundu.