Who Stands to Gain from Uhuru Park Bombings?

Why what I think about the constitution doesn’t matter

by Sunny Bindra on June 20, 2010

in Sunday Nation

Last Sunday Kenya changed for the worse.

As we know, grenades were thrown at a rally held as part of the current constitutional review campaigns. The resulting explosions killed six Kenyans and injured scores of others.

The numbers mislead us. They turn the people who died into mere statistics. Note and turn the page. But can we, really? Six innocent people who merely happened to be standing in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is six sets of hopes vaporised and six families devastated. All because some ruthless and amoral people want to play politics with innocent lives.

This was a very, very dangerous event for Kenya, and I hope our leaders have understood the real dangers. Those explosions might reverberate for years to come if we are not alert. At Uhuru Park last Sunday, it became fair game to bomb a rally for political purposes. If this is not stopped right here, we run many risks. We risk turning religion against religion and province against province. We risk tit-for-tat violence. We risk damaging democracy and the freedom of expression.

For weeks now, readers of this column have been asking me to state my position on the proposed new constitution. Am I ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, ‘Green’ or ‘Red’? I have resisted making any comment. We are already a nation of sheep perpetually waiting to be led, and I have no desire to add to the stock of malevolent shepherds.

I have no idea why it matters to anyone what I, or any other columnist or commentator, thinks about the draft constitution. I have read it, and my views on it are personal.

I know very well that more than 9 out of 10 will never read the thing. Of those that do read it, most will escape with the most perfunctory understanding. Yet democracy demands that people vote on it.

As things stand, a hundred or so people are going to direct the vote of millions. Is that what democracy was meant to be? Do we follow the will of the majority, or the will of the chosen few?

Have we not done enough damage by being brainless tools who are easily used by the crafty manipulators amongst us? Watch any political rally, and you will see people being whipped into a frenzy by the language and imagery deployed by demagogues.

Go and look at IDP camps and see the misery inflicted by mindless mobs who allowed themselves to be mobilised by warmongers. Witness the quality of the average parliamentary debate and see the damage caused to the management of the country by people willing to elect buffoons and charlatans.

All of this happens because we have developed a culture of being led by the nose, shown the way, told what’s right, asked to leave our brains outside when we listen to politicos and padres.

We follow our parents, no matter how ignorant and bigoted they are; we follow our teachers, no matter how misguided; we follow our clerics even though they fill our ears with intolerance; we follow our bosses, even when they are self-aggrandising cartoons. And ultimately we follow warlords who tell us that our neighbours are our mortal enemies and our fellow Kenyans the spawn of the devil.

This blind acceptance, this unquestioning faith in others, this refusal to think for ourselves, this wilful dismembering of the brains we have been given – this is our undoing.

This nation has danced to the tune of a manipulative elite for decades. The result is poison and hatred, suspicion and mistrust, delusion and ignorance. And now, the result is bombs in Uhuru Park.

So I break my silence on matters constitutional, but only to say this: forget what I, your MP, your pastor, foreign countries, professors all think. All those parties may have enormous vested interests and other agendas.

What is important is what YOU think. Read the damn document to the best of your ability, draw your own conclusions, no matter how modest, and vote with your own mind and conscience.

After that we should all accept the will of the majority, no matter how wrong we think it is, and go back to work. It’s a document, people. It’s not something to rip up our country over. It’s not something to incite hatred over. It’s not something to throw bombs over.

So I am not going to tell you how manically YES or hysterically NO I am. All I am going to repeat is that we have to grow up and decide things for ourselves, using our own faculties and experiences of life. And if that does not produce the result we want, we have to live with the wish of the majority. Societies need to tolerate diversity of opinion. Otherwise totalitarianism and fascism awaits in the shadows. Whatever you think about this constitution, don’t accept that threats, hate speech and bombs should be any part of the debate.

Source: www.sunwords.com/2010/06/20/why-what-i-think-about-the-constitution-doesnt-matter/

This article could have been written for some folks i know!

They were waxing lyrical about bomas katiba with its in built majimbo, parliamentary system, powerful senate, three tier federalism etc...

But when the "chosen one" changed his mind, they suddenly discovered that that a presidential system, weak senate, no majimbo, two tier system are all good!!

Just cos the "chosen one" had said it was all good!!

Reminds me of one fella who pretends he can read but could not even read s64(4) of the present katiba, and instead peddling cheap lies and propaganda

Adongo,

Now that you address me specifically, i will address you specifically.

You couldn't read s64(4) of the present katiba and instead went about spreading lies and propaganda.

If, just like sunny bindra says, you couldnt read for yourself some easy facts and instead peddle lies, how dyu expect any reasonable person to have a discussion with you?

Not to mention that you did not even have the courtesy to withdraw the nasty lies you had written??

Kamale and Tactician,

I wont say much, for it will be good to leave behind what just transpired. However I must acknowledge your good input.

Merlin, I am most pleased to read your sober input into the thread. THANK YOU!

I will let my mind wander about with this ... I will probably repeat myself or have circular sentences as I do not envision having enough time to be clean enough - I will try:

---

Game Theory

Game theory is a stylized approach to analyzing how people(players) interact in bounded decision environments (that is where at least something is limited and therefore causing competition either among the players, or between the players and other agents or phenomena); to put it crudely, it assumes that given the knowledge of payoffs that arise from various types of moves (in the game), a player will choose the move that leads to its "best" pay-off.

There are 3 basic elements that make a game theory puzzle: payoff, strategies that lead to different pay-offs, and rules that govern the game. In a game where none of these are known with certainty, it is easy to appreciate that an analyst can call a theory brilliant, yet proceed to differ with the developer of the theory on the developer's particular set of the 3 elements.

To the challenge that remains for me to say what it is in Ngunyi's piece that I termed "brilliant", therefore, I reiterate my position that I already submitted that it is the game-theoretic development that excited (and still excites me). As to the details of Ngunyi's own analysis, I said (in my very first post) that I was challenged to read the articles Ngunyi cited in developing his analysis. Which clearly meant that I was not ready to exalt or denounce Ngunyi's analysis or even the solution (which Ngunyi did not offer by the way). To push me to pronounce my view on Ngunyi's own analysis after I already made that statement, is to clearly betray one's disadvantaged position in separating the game (the set of 3 elements) and its analysis. I am not going to insult anyone for this; we all know different things (and differently). However I am going to propose that people should not be in any haste to insult others, especially when it is likely they are not all that familiar with the subject they are picking on.

Aug 4th Referendum in game theory: First, the referendum game we regulars are put up with is totally different from the one set for Kibaki and Raila. So let's stick with the one that has come up for discussion at this juncture.

Still, I will not go into the articles Ngunyi quoted. I have not yet reviewed them, and even when I do I would probably rather make it my personal analysis. After all, it is very likely that we would have endless battles here if I end up saying that I am impressed by the analysis of the particular articles.

Merlin has prudently pushed the topic to the next level - and I am most grateful for that. So let me join in, adding or suggesting alternative thoughts as I deem necessary. But I start off by saying Merlin's take on this seems very close to mine:

Motivation ... in other words, what is the game?

I perceive the referendum game for Kibaki and Raila, as Ngunyi developed it, to be multilayered: the alternative target outcomes are YES or (No). Those are the only options. Each has told us he is for YES.

I want to propose an alternative to Merlin's view of Kibaki and Raila's options:

Strategies
Being Kibaki or Raila, after considering the payoffs and therefore deciding on which of the outcomes is desirable to self, then each picks his game strategies. But let's think about rules first, because the strategies to being picked under those rules:

Rules
I just point the main one: "NO" is not an option for either executive! The international powers already put very personal price tags on such a choice.

Now back to strategies: If either of the executives' YES is more "NO" than "YES", I have my reasoned speculation as to which one it is. I will keep that to myself, because it is my sense that Jukwaa cannot handle such a discussion.

So, if the game is to either support YES or NO, but a major rule rules out the latter, how does one play a game being honest to oneself? That question applies particularly in the scenario that a player identifies "NO" (the censored play) as the best outcome to oneself. The only rule that cannot be broken, is that of self-destruction or else we have a nonsense game.

Decision:
The prospect that someones best outcome in the game is that outcome which, though theoretically available, is somehow out-lawed, is what makes Ngunyi suspect that the game has gone underground.

Ngunyi's story came out at a time when I lost lots of hear from all the scratching as I tried to make sense of this very weired second marriage of the already odd couple. How could I not call it brilliant then!

Someone else can validly say that this is not even the correct game design for the situation, and that would be ok ... but from where I stand, this design makes sense that far.

The prospect that the marriage under YES umbrella is a bluff by at least one of the players, understandably arising from the fact that it is unacceptable for either player to stand up for the "NO" strategy even when it is his personal "best", is scaring!

It may be the obvious thing to to laugh out loud at hypotheticals like these, but as we do, let's remember that we have Uhuru Park bombings that remain to be explained. If they will ever be resolved, it will be when one of many hypothesis come to yield ... it could very well be this one! As we dismiss this, also, let's note that what will count is not what a voter says, but what s/he votes. And if this game makes sense to one player, potential beneficiaries of either outcome only need to be aware that the game is gone underground, and they will play the two games perfectly ... united in the hidden game by intimately hidden knowledge of where the payoff is best, and and the knowledge (or perception) that others also know the same - what do they have to lose after all, given that even if their strategy does not win no one but themselves will ever know for sure that they were double-playing? In my sense therefore, one can be against the draft in his conscience with as much vigour as he wants to portray himself as being for the draft - after all August 4th is not tomorrow, so many daylights are yet on the way when a wink can still be exchanged (or as I posed earlier, one of the principles and all his followers are stuck in the mud of analysis and are yet to determine their strategic position).

I like game theory, and I am taking all the pleasure to entertain myself - so if you call this nonsense, don't be surprised when I agree (I doubt that will ever be justified).

That is as far as I am ready to glorify Ngunyi's theory. Beyond that point, my prospects of agreement with Ngunyi depends on my subjectivities and shortcomings in the mastery of the law that forms Ngunyi's analysis.

Merlin, I am curious as to why you think this: " .... will probably be challenged by his conscience to build a more just and better Kenya for all." Of course I am not asking about a quest for a legacy, a common pursuit for most at sunset, but ... if we agree that the fore bearers of office have disappointed when we counted on "conscience", is there good reason to count on "conscience" on the part of ANY one leader, present or future?

I am not sure about Ngunyi's theory about the transition period - however, I think that is a simple issue to decide upon since it just requires reading the articles. What is not trivial, and it is perhaps an issue of personal appeal, is buying into the general construct of the theory above. Once someone likes the theory s/he can go on to fill the analysis with totally different and ever changing potential strategies towards presumed best outcomes.

As a final comment, I am not sure "civilian coup" in this usage had the same meaning as the general term "coup". I could be wrong, as I have not found a formal definition. I presume from the context that any rise to the executive under the circumstances Ngunyi describes (whereby there is a hole in the law guiding picking of the executive) would be termed "civilian coup". I do not think it is meant as a forceful takeover of government as "coups" are known - and I think he postulates that under the circumstances he discusses ODM would be the strategically placed body to fill the vacuum. That I think is an issue of the law, and Ngunyi has provided the body of laws that leads him to the scenario he lays out. Incidentally I am not too interested to find out whether Ngunyi studied the laws correctly, and by the time I get that far, this topic will have aged. I hope there are experts out there that will readily explore it and share.

Amen!!!!

And here comes Njoki Ndung'u telling off the scum-bag propagandist and hireling scribe.

Please, please, please, pay attention to an obvious pattern in Mutahi Ngunyi's desperate articles.

Ngunyi is clearly campaigning against the draft...

Ngunyi is openly inciting the Judiciary, Armed forces, the AG, and others to oppose the draft...

Ngunyi is surreptitiously attempting to consummate the 'KKK' idea in certain peoples' minds before the referendum... seeking to slice and dice Kenya into a 3 K versus 38 contest....or what he deceptively markets & promotes as a 'winning' outfit of a solid 8 million votes....for the record - it will not happen - just a pipedream.

Ngunyi's so called conspiracy theories are nothing but a political job filled with divisive and incendiary rhetoric, laced with negative ethnicity and hateful hyperboles.

He epitomizes the past we want to forget - anti-reformist inciters and hate mongers.

Peddling scary hypotheses & fear mongering towards simpletons with whispers such as 'Raila wants to enforce a coup' is cheeky but has obvious intended purposes.

It will fail - mark these words...

over to Njoki Ndung'u.

www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Why%20is%20columnist%20spreading%20these%20myths%20and%20half%20truths/-/440808/944376/-/vywp9a/-/index.html

Why is columnist spreading these myths and half-truths

By NJOKI NDUNG'U
Posted Tuesday, June 22 2010 at 17:42

I read with great concern a commentary by Mutahi Ngunyi early this week (SN, June 20) in which he suggests that the Proposed Constitution will extend the term of President Kibaki and Parliament up to 2015.

This conclusion is hardly factual.

The Committee of Experts, in line with the wishes of Kenyans, has ensured there is no secrecy about the date of future elections, and that there is a consistent set date for the day of the General Election, including the one to be held in 2012.

Certainly, there will be no extension of either the presidential election or the term of the Tenth Parliament.

In the Sixth Schedule of the Proposed Constitution, which deals with transitional issues, Article 3 clearly provides for the extension of the provisions of Chapter 2 of the current Constitution concerning the Executive until the next General Election.

Under section 9 of the current Constitution, the President can only hold office for five years from the day he is sworn in. The Sixth Schedule of the Proposed constitution provides that persons occupying the offices of President and Prime Minister immediately before the effective date shall continue to serve in accordance with the former Constitution until the first general elections.

This means that the last day that President Kibaki can possibly hold office is December 30, 2012.

A presidential election must be held on or before this day. To determine which day that will be, one must refer to the provision of the Proposed Constitution that states that the election of the President shall be held on the same day as a general election of Members of Parliament, being the second Tuesday in August, in the fifth year.

If one reads all these sections together, it means the date of the next general election will be August 13, 2012.

Until this date, the current President still retains all his executive powers under the former Constitution, including the power to dissolve Parliament for the 2012 election.

In other articles, Mr Ngunyi has claimed that the Proposed Constitution removes the immunity of President Kibaki from criminal prosecution, and that Prime Minister Odinga will call an early election facilitating a civilian coup.

How this is possible when the transition clauses speak about the continuity of the Executive as it is till the next election, and where there is a pre-determined election date on the face of the Proposed Constitution, is just one pointer to the fact that Mr Ngunyi has either not studied the document at all, or is deliberately misleading the public.

In yet another article earlier this month, Mr Ngunyi claimed that the Proposed Constitution would disband the Provincial Administration and allow the Armed forces to unionise.

Anyone who has read the document knows that there is nothing further from the truth in this; there is a specific provision which retains the Provincial Administration who will be part of the National Government implementing national obligations under Schedule 4.

Article 24 (5) of the Bill of Rights makes specific exemptions of the Armed Forces and Police Service from joining trade unions or participating in protests.

Mr Ngunyi also suggests the Judiciary and the Attorney-General are aggrieved by the draft, though the CoE consistently engaged, and indeed, took on board, most of the reforms proposed by the Judiciary, and that the AG is himself a member of the Committee of Experts.

[/size]

The 'Nation' is to be lauded for its efforts to separate myths from facts in the document.

It is regrettable, therefore, that one of the Daily Nation columnists continues to contribute consistent misinformation, distortions and plain untruths. Mr Ngunyi, to use his own words, is being “clumsy, thoughtless and reckless”.

If this is from lack of information, he is best advised to take up some classes during the civic education being conducted by the CoE on the Proposed Draft, so that like other Kenyans, he is able to make an informed choice on the referendum.

If, on the other hand, he is deliberately misleading the public for whatever the reason, Mr Ngunyi, who is a godly man, ought to know that credibility is a political analyst’s greatest asset.

It would do well for him to read the words of Proverbs 9:5: “A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will not escape”.

Ms Ndung’u is a member of the Committee of Experts on the Proposed new law.[/blockquote]

job,

I think Njoki did a good thing challenging the Daily Nation as to why they have this hate monger and liar using their pages to publish outright falsehoods. Ngunyi is not an idiot. He knows he is lying but he thinks he can hide his lies behind some clever words here and there. He also knows there are a lot of gullible people out there who would swallow his lies and nonsense as gospel truth and revelations and keep recycling the same.

I am all for freedom of expression but surely as much as people are entitled to their opinions they cannot also be entitled to their own facts, particularly the ones they invent on the go.

There is absolutely no way and no chance in hell for the Prime Minister to carry out this so called "civilian coup" that Ngunyi was talking about. Ngunyi knows that but he thinks if he can generate some hatred towards Raila and bend things to look like Raila is cooking something on the back burner he would get the usual crowd fired up and may be get the tribal gangsters to do something to defeat the Draft. It is sickening but that is the Kenya we have to deal with. No problem. The struggle continues.

adongo

Ngunyi's speculative call, which has made bile rise in the throats of certain people, was based on specific articles of the draft constitution, and those of the current constitution that are relevant under the new. So, why do people who claim to be smart, and who see only foolishness in those who they enthusiastically disagree with, rush to capitalize on potentially incorrect critiques of Ngunyi to throw foolish arguments at Ngunyi and people like I who see Ngunyi as a credible writer, instead of them developing their own arguments to dismember those of Ngunyi?

I challenge these name callers and smack-talkers to show where Ngunyi is wrong. Here are the articles Ngunyi references (and the effects) - let us see what is not correct in his art:

ONE: Ngunyi references the Sixth Schedule of the new draft. He says that Article 3 removes Section 59 of the current constitution.

This is what Article 3 of the Sixth Schedule in the new constitution says:


So, Article 3 gives power to certain articles of the old constitution, but not to Article 59. So Ngunyi's first point is uncontested.

Two: The second key argument of Ngunyi is that Article 10 of Sixth Schedule allows Parliament to finish its ‘‘unexpired term’’ but does not tell us how Parliament will be dissolved.

Here is what Article 10 of the Sixth Schedule says:


Recall though, that Article 3 above mutes article 59 of the old constitution. Article 59 of the old constitution says this:


Of the articles of the old constitution that are given life by the current constitution in the transition period, none pronounces the dissolution of parliament. So Ngunyi's second argument is also uncontested as far as I can tell.

Third: Ngunyi claims that because the President will not NO ONE WILL dissolve Parliament, it must dissolve five years from when it first sat on January 16, 2008, which translates to January 15, 2013. This, I suppose would be the date of the previous National Assembly coming to term as allowed by Article 10 above. Ngunyi continues, from this date, Article 9 and 3 require us to hold an election in 60 days. Arithmetically, this takes us to March 17, 2013 ....

Until someone shows otherwise, these just seem to be fact-based deductions. So it seems Ngunyi's third argument also stands meaning that an election in 2012 is not legally supported!

Fourth: Ngunyi claims that Article 3 does not suspend the provisions that define the President’s term. In other words, President Kibaki’s term will expire on December 29, 2012 as per Section 9(1) of the current constitution. And if this happens, we will have to wait for close to three months for a presidential election to happen on March 15, 2013. In sum, we will have no president, constitutionally, for three months. .... Again, unless someone can show otherwise, this is a simple fact of the 2 constitutions. So Ngunyi's 4th argument also stands strong.

In my interpretation, what may happen to fill the executive lacuna in the time that the law puts the country presidentless, is what Ngunyi terms "civilian coup", whoever does it.

Instead of people coming with all gawd-awful orifices open dispensing filth on Ngunyi's theories and those who read them, the responsible thing is to analyze the arguments first. To the extent that these arguments look nothing as foolish or as corrupted as some have alleged here, the names they hollor revert right at the faces of those who hollor them.

TNK,

What you provide seems a concrete guide between elections after a first election occurs under the new constitution. However it does not seem to apply systematically and objectively in the transition period - if it could explain where Ngunyi's body of argument falls flat, then we can say it is objective as far as we know ... still Ngunyi's theory, which attends to the transition period, seems consistent with the draft law. So I think the transition period does leave out issues not tied tight.

I think Ngunyi does a good job in pointing out gray areas, of the constitution, some of which I believe will remain uncovered till we hit them when we hit the ground running. In terms of reading the constitution as a whole, I am not sure Ngunyis argument can be condemned for any failure there ... it pieces together the relevant parts of the incoming with the outgoing constitution. Your clauses are all from the new constitution, while Ngunyi's arguments are attending to that period when we will be shifting from old to new, hence more wholistic. True? I could be wrong.

Don't you think there is some subjectivity involved in applying this law begining with an election that occurred before this constitution? The only time I would see no subjectivity is if the previous election was referenced as a counting point in transitional clauses.

The Sixth Schedule is what attempts to provide the transition, but does not take care of this matter. So all we are doing here is pitting two possible interpretations against each other. And that is the gray area (ambiguity) I allude to.

Good we have now covered that.



Yes it does. It also recognizes that there is already a National Assembly when it comes into effect.



Same was as it does the National Assemblie ... that there was a functioning government enshrined by the old constitution.



Ngunyi picks at exactly the part that is supposed to regularize the transition from old to new, with regard to general elections. He shows a pitfall, using those very clauses. Once the transition is governed by intuition, people have different senses of intuition, and that is why the Sixth Schedule was necessary.



Yes, and that is not the issue. No one is introducing an inconsistency in the interpretation i.e recognizing that the man is a president but refusing to acknowledge that he is a president by virtue of participating in an election ... in fact my analysis of Ngunyi's piece yesterday recognizes the Kibaki's election, and gives it power to come to term per the draft law. Your allegation there is strange.

In your attempt to trivialize the transition, as you try to dismiss the legal gap created by Sixth schedule, you are making it sound like the Sixth Schedule was not necessary - The Schedule seems to help with the issues it addresses for the transition, so it is prudent to accept that it missed something. I think we should argue using the clauses ... not my intentions, which you seem to be over imagining.

TNK, that is part of what discussion of Ngunyi's narrative should be all about - transition.



Ngunyi follows exactly the transition clauses that were supposed to define or identify the peg or significant event from which we tether the fifth year. It is in following those clauses that the arithmetic comes up.



Without a transition clause nothing materially links the event of your youtube clip to what this constitution says. But it is not that we do not have a transition clause ... the transition clauses are what Ngunyi analyzes. Now, if you are not going to address those, which I have given quite an effort before attending to everyone of your argument, then we are not really having a discussion because you are avoiding it. So evaluate, if you are not going to attend to the sixth schedule on this matter, we are done.

TNK,

Even while you managed to avoid the discussion, evidently just so you do not end up being forced by facts to acknowledge that Ngunyi did a good job, I think your last words are more constructive for the discussion than those you gave earlier. So here also is my exclamation to the discussion:

Wherever gray areas arise, lawsuits are likely. But this discussion is not about small gray areas - Following the draft law strictly, we get into the knot that Ngunyi discusses - that is an uncontested fact! If that knot is dealt with, not in the draft law, or all who are anxious to prove Ngunyi and his readers wrong would have found it by now!

For one, you have agreed with me that the draft law does not point out when the 5 year clock starts running - which means the draft law does not point at elections in 2012.

Secondly, we have seen that as relates to the transition period, selected provisions of the old constitution will be in effect until when parliament passes article 15 & 18 - Those parts do not include the article that describes how elections are called under the present constitution. They however allow the current parliament and president to run their term, which goes well beyond Aug. 2012, the time elections are supposed to be held under the new law.

While a general election is still possible in 2012, just as not everything that happens is provided for by the constitution, the above two points suggest that general elections in 2012 are not backed by the draft law - we are just lucky that Kibaki is not a very popular president, or he would be dragging us through courts, with both constitutions on his side, when we want an election to oust him in Aug. 2012. ... now, to pre-empty those trash talkers who my suggest I be Kibaki's lawyer, as I have seen them say to others making an argument like this, it is not the lawyer that would give Kibaki the basis for rebuttal ... it is the draft law, and its selective kill and keep policy of provisions of the old. But Kibaki might even help break the law, by seeming to dissolve parliament when the constitution passes, even though by then he does not have the power to do such a thing ... that would be the best thing though, because that would make him an accomplice, and also take him away from the side that would be filing well-founded complaints.

Sixth schedule leaves an opening to seal the hole, (i.e. with appropriate legislation by parliament when it passes the Act anticipated in Articles 15 and 18) ... but that would not in time to catch up with 2012.

==================================================================================================
With that I complete my analysis of Ngunyi's piece, as I was challenged to do. Anyone wishing to contest my presentation must stay with the applicable clauses of the draft law ... otherwise smart a$$ bile here does not count as argument.

TNK: the disclaimer I am putting here is not at all addressing your exchange with me, but those others whose bile I know is waiting to flow. Although there are a few things you sent my way that made me question whether you are not stepping out of your usually honourable character, I cannot be sure. You may correct me on that, if you wish, but you have always had my respect - and I would rather keep things that way even while you do not like what I say.

Finally, I am not a lawyer ... above is my lay-man digestion of the articles brought up by Ngunyi.
==================================================================================================