|
|
Post by nowayhaha on Dec 3, 2012 17:48:00 GMT 3
Court approves new integrity case against Uhuru, Ruto A fresh petition challenging the integrity of Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and Eldoret North MP William Ruto has been certified as urgent. Justice David Majanja on Monday ruled that the petition by the International Centre for Peace and Conflict (ICPC) raised weighty constitutional issues which need to be determined urgently. He directed the lobby group to serve Mr Kenyatta, Mr Ruto, the Attorney General and the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission with the application before it is mentioned on Wednesday for further directions. This is the second time a petition questioning the integrity of Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto has been lodged. In the new development, the ICPC, through lawyer Eliud Senteu, submitted that the petition is of great public interest and should be heard on a priority basis given that the two have entered into a coalition to run for the presidency and deputy presidency. “Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto have been committed to trial at the International Criminal Court and there are all indication they will run for state offices therefore the issue of integrity as outlined in Chapter Six of the constitution need to be determined before nominations of candidates,” said Mr Senteu. Apart from Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto, the ICPC also wants the electoral commission barred from accepting the candidature of any person seeking to be president, governor, senator or MP if such a person is subject to a criminal case whose sentence is at least six months. They want a court declaration that the candidature of Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto is a threat to the constitution and a perpetuation of a culture of impunity. ICPC argued that according to the constitution, a leader is contemplated to be someone who carries dignity, legitimacy and has the people’s trust and confidence. “A person committed to trial at the Hague would not be able to discharge his duties since he would be required to attend the hearings which would seriously erode the honour and integrity required of any public officer,” said the lobby in their application. They submitted that electing any person committed to trial will bring dishonour to the office and seriously affect the person’s ability to discharge his duties. They added that the trial of Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto at the Hague court may lead to issuance of warrants of arrests and erode the country’s sovereignty and cause embarrassment. The group is seeking an interpretation of whether the presumption of innocence of a person committed to trial overrides the public interest of ensuring the protection of the values of the Constitution. “We also want a determination of whether Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto or any other person charged on similar crimes can hold a public office and whether that would be a recipe for anarchy and perpetuate the culture of impunity,” said the lobby group. The ICPC wants the court to find Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto unfit to contest the presidency, the deputy presidency or any other position due to their cases at the ICC. Last week, civil activists Charles Omanga and Patrick Njuguna withdrew their petition against the duo and promised to lodge a fresh one that will encompass all the presidential aspirants. (READ: Petitioners withdraw Uhuru, Ruto integrity case) Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto are facing charges of crimes against humanity arising from 2008 post-election violence which left over 1,000 people dead and over 650,000 displaced from their homes. They are due to stand trial at the ICC from April 2013. www.nation.co.ke/News/politics/Court-approves-new-integrity-case-against-Uhuru--Ruto/-/1064/1635450/-/4yjogb/-/index.html |
|
|
|
Post by reporter911 on Dec 3, 2012 19:49:17 GMT 3
Court approves new integrity case against Uhuru, Ruto Comments from Kenya Citizens TheRiver Between • 3 hours ago This is it - the way to go! Most Kenyans know the words said by one leader at some point, 'There comes a time when a nation is more important than an individual '. Mheshimiwa • 3 hours ago How can one seek to defend themselves using a constitution they are not obeying? Yesterday in Nakuru, foreigners were told that Kenya can sort her issues because we have a new constitution. Yes, that's true but how can one use it as a ground to tell off others who are foreigners and then internally go against its fundamental contents on integrity? Being an ICC suspect is such a big question of integrity unless some suspects plan to abscond the hearings. sirjaard > Mheshimiwa • 2 hours ago I pity Kenyans beautyandbeast • 3 hours ago UhuRuto, its a pity that your joy is short lived. One day you are celebrating a marriage and the next day, someone is whining really loudly about you and its not the 1st time either..Doesn't this mean there is something you are not doing right? Retrace your steps... Rudde Bwai • 4 hours ago even if the courts rule they are eligible, I'm still not ready to see a Kshs 1,000,000,000,000 note and those who support this team were either toddlers in the early 1990s or not yet born or they clearly did not see what happened to Zimbabwe or they just ignorant. Abdulkarim Njoka > Rudde Bwai • 2 hours ago this si the best piece of opinion i have evr seen in kenya kazora > Rudde Bwai • an hour ago You forgot to say you'd need a bunch of the same to buy a loaf of underweighed bread. I am with you ndugu Mkenya. Obak • 3 hours ago It is only in Kenya where we have to force people to accept that this are integrity issues which need to be addressed before seeking presidency? can't they see that ? why is being president a matter of life and death for uhuruto what is it that they are afraid of if not elected president?  ?I would like to know but not from a tribal sycophant. daniel mwaniki > Obak • 2 hours ago Why are you concerned if it is not important
Willie > Obak • 2 hours agoBecause they are still clean until proven guilty. K'obama's Unkle > Willie • 2 hours ago How about Barasa? Y should she be different yet she also sought public office but was never accused of rape, murder, arson and other grave human rights violations tim tim > Willie • 2 hours ago Thats not the argument - THEY DONT PASS A SIMPLE TEST IN THE NEW TESTARMENT (CONSITUTION) CALLED 'INTEGRITY' Evans Araka • 3 hours ago Good the duo are facing charges of crime aganist humanty so unfit to hold public office.the court should act fast to stop them Sammy Mwangi • 3 hours ago This guys should be let to run. So that when they are defeated, they wont have anybody to blame. They are known to blame everything on their rivals. They came with 'Don't be vague; go to Hague!'. This was before they knew that their names were in the famous envelope. But don't they blame RAO on the hague issue?
manmuti > Sammy Mwangi • an hour ago Boss is not the issue of RAO but the economy and the problem we will face, remember they are millionnaires and they will not feel effect when kenya will be isolated international and economy suffer. its common man, better prevention than cure. the cost of cure might be high to afford. Jenepher Nalyanya > Sammy Mwangi • an hour ago Yes sammy on old constiution they could be let but this is new constitution that took forever, want to taint in the name of two fools who think they are entittltled or kenyans owe them, what? Simon Muturi • 3 hours ago Now this might just wipe the big smiles off the faces of the two!! It is called a sobering moment! GKusimba > Simon Muturi • 2 hours ago Rude awakening! adow wehliye • 2 hours ago they have been suspended from their respective ministries due to crimes against humanity charges at Hague. they cant contest 4 any public office. period... let them clear their names first
Rawser • 3 hours ago Who let the dogs out?! K'obama's Unkle > Rawser • 2 hours ago woof, woof !! Evans Araka • 3 hours ago anyway let them contest so that when RAO wins wsiwe na excuse Evans Otieno > Evans Araka • 3 hours ago They must not contest! Who said if they are not there RAO will win? If they are not good to contest to govern us all, they are just that; not good for now...This is Kenya we are talking about not contest btn UK & RAO. OQape • 3 hours ago Birds of the same feather flock together! Caleb Divison • 3 hours ago I do not see the reason y they should be barred from vying. Because even if the prime minister decide not to run but to support them, they won't make it to state house. Abdulkarim Njoka > Caleb Divison • 2 hours ago prime minister atoka wapi kwa hii kesi tena? mzalendohatari • 3 hours ago Hi kitu haiendi mahali popote. Joel Kibos • 3 hours ago ICPC is also wants something. ha ha ha! bushny > Joel Kibos • 2 hours ago That's what i thought!!! Abdulkarim Njoka > Joel Kibos • 2 hours ago kwani ile ya kwanza some one gave out something? Wacha Ushenzi • 3 hours ago I'm not for Uhuruto but I know that this issues raised by ICPC are just matters of ethical concern that have no constitutional grounds, the two candidates have the constitutional rights to run for any public office, its plain and clear in the constitution, "Innocent until proven guilty", so stop complicating integrity issues with constitutional rights. Morality and integrity can be interpreted to suit once's desires while constitutional rights are non negotiable. Let the people exercise their democratic rights Simon Muturi > Wacha Ushenzi • 2 hours ago Stop displaying ignorance. There is a whole chapter on integrity in our constitution. Cases in ICC are not based on ethical issues, they are based on strong evidence of possible wrong doing. In any case there is already a precedence set. I have seen many public official 'step a side' when they are arraigned in court and will only be reinstated once proven innocent. Why is Uhuru and Ruto different? Are you suggesting we suspend constitution for the the sake of the two? By the way the court is only being asked to determine whether presumption to innocence until proven guilty overrides public good. The outcome of this determination will affect many other people running for various public offices. So Hold your horses.
Sojourner > Simon Muturi • an hour ago Do you understand the implication of what you are advocating? Just imagine that you have a president seeking re-election and facing a strong opponent. Somebody is then bribed to lodge a case of say... rape against the opponent. A criminal case is then filed against the opponent on that basis. Since the courts do not adjudicate the matters immediately, you have a case pending in court. Somebody moves to the constitutional court and cites the case of Uhuru Kenyatta/ William Ruto Vs ICPC. Since there is a precedent (case law), the opponent is barred from contesting and the president wins the re-election. I do understand your opinion but just digest the wider ramification and the fact that the custodians of our laws are not saints. darubini > Wacha Ushenzi • 2 hours ago Wacha ushenzi it is you that should wacha ushenzi.Integrity issues are actually ethics issues -they are one and the same.Your arguement is ridiculous.Enrich your life with a proper knowledge of issues.Please do not discuss issues that you dont understand.Also.change your online name it reflects poorly on you. Abdulkarim Njoka > Wacha Ushenzi • 2 hours ago let the courtts decide,matters of opinion are very different from those of law.what we are reading is your opinion ,what the court will rule,whatever it will be,we be a matter of laws.am happy you are not a judge in any of our courts manmuti > Wacha Ushenzi • an hour ago if the rights does not affect other peoples rights, rights do not exist in a vacuum. Boniface Maina > Wacha Ushenzi • an hour ago Sometimes I fail to understand this law jargon is it "innocent until proven guilty" or the other way, cos if the two are innocent why were they taken to The Hague? It creates more meaning if it is "guilty until proven innocent" which will be done after march 2013. So to me they do not qualify to vie for any elective post yesuwangu • 2 hours ago Uhuru kenyatta now sounds like jomo kenyatta for only those who where alive and saw jomo kenyatta can notice this through his voice,directive and command Njonjo Ndehi • 2 hours ago Why is the ICC prosecuting Gbagbo but not Ouattara? Is it because Ouattara is Wencx • 2 hours ago With due respect to UHURUTO coalition, it will be nice for them to step aside and cleared by ICC and come back to run for presidency, Just like Mandela (27yrs in prison) and came out to be the president. PEV was an interest for the presidential kings (Raila/Kibaki) but due to the role they played as lieutenants maybe that's why they have a case to answer. I understand that they are innocent until proven guilty but my argument is on integrity and the situation they will put Kenya once they're declared winners. Willie Wanjihia • 3 hours ago Anybody without malice or getting paid to stop another through under-hand methods and last using courts to blackmail or as a way to extort money KNOWS one is enocent untill proven otherwise and all appeal court judgements have been exhausted thus the person is convicted before the law.To judge otherwise will spell death to all other laws eg if one accuse anybody of anything then we take their constitution and God given right without waiting for trial . ? Jim Kones • 2 hours ago These cases are just but puppy shows.If the ICC saw no reason to bar the two from running for political office, why would someone would think they will bar the two locally, yet we have domesticated the ICC? Li'mSim Lwa • 2 hours ago The case will be equally thrown out because of wrong motive behind its filing... oldframe • 2 hours ago ......the courts cannot bar them from running but can kick them out in an election petition.......hold your horses ICPC cyril > oldframe • an hour ago two petitions have already been sent by the look of things the petitions are worthless I_am_kenyan • 2 hours ago I for sure don't support the duo but ICPC you've got it all wrong. Save us the drama please. mutarahiti • 2 hours ago LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE K'obama's Unkle > mutarahitimutarahitiLET THE PEOPLE DECIDE • 2 hours ago The people have already decided - they passed a constitution, overwhelmingly - declaring all aspirants seeking public office MUST meet the requirements of chapter 6 of the Kenya Constitution. WE SPOKE IN ONE LOUD VOICE arent getting off the hook! |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Dec 3, 2012 21:57:17 GMT 3
This insight is what the Judge Warsame and his panel could not gather, or if they did, some hidden hand of a certain market persuaded them to ignore it.
Weighty Issues that demand urgency!
What is the difference between Majanja and Warsame in this case? Majanja has decided to think. Warsame to be brain dead.
But there is still a problem for Majanja: the fellows who withdrew the case say they are preparing the mother of all PETITIONS. Perhaps Majanja can handle THE ELEPHANT all IN TOTO, rather than piecemeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by reporter911 on Dec 3, 2012 22:37:32 GMT 3
... and now the not so civilized society aka ODM shadow campaign machine withdraws the integrity case on very flimsy grounds. My hunch is that with the deadline for election pacts fast approaching and 'Kajudas' wavering, the thinking in ODM is to put pressure on him to join them now that the hope of stopping Uhuruto from running is no longer there. Desperation is kicking is kicking in at the orange house in big volumes. Uhuruto have no chance in hell unless they make all Kenyans "Robotic" voters (quote from Miguna) through some magical substance.. Meanwhile Kenyans are awake at last after the "PEV" Kenya iko na wenyewe  |
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Dec 4, 2012 12:58:28 GMT 3
This insight is what the Judge Warsame and his panel could not gather, or if they did, some hidden hand of a certain market persuaded them to ignore it. Weighty Issues that demand urgency! What is the difference between Majanja and Warsame in this case? Majanja has decided to think. Warsame to be brain dead. But there is still a problem for Majanja: the fellows who withdrew the case say they are preparing the mother of all PETITIONS. Perhaps Majanja can handle THE ELEPHANT all IN TOTO, rather than piecemeal. You are trying to antagonize me in tit-for-tat, for which I am not falling.I shall show some restrain and despite the constant provocation I read from your side-kick, I think I must explain the two cases applications, which you seem to highlight between the two different judge of the High Court. It is important you don’t ‘manufacture’ your own facts and stories about cases – as that misleads and propagates falsehood. First, there was a case challenging the eligibility of the deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto to run for political office. The petitioners (activists Charles Omanga, Patrick Njuguna and Augustine Neto (now Ndiwa MP), and several NGOs) in that case sought the interpretation of Chapter Six of the Constitution on Leadership and Integrity claiming Uhuru's and Ruto's participation in the elections as candidate arguing that it would be a " recipe for chaos and perpetuate the culture of impunity in the country”. They were seeking orders to stop the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission from accepting their nomination papers over the integrity question. When the case came before the duty single judge, it was progressed to the CJ to appoint a bench (3 or 5) to hear the substantive issues on the case. The bench appointed was made of Justices Isaac Lenaola, Mohammed Warsame and Lady Justice Philomena Mwilu. Before it could be go on, three things came up, 1. whether to adjoin all the other presidential candidates in the application, not singling out Uhuru and Ruto. In September, the petitioners amended the case to include the names of Raila Odinga, Kalonzo Musyoka and Musalia Mudavadi over varying allegations ranging from abuse of office, nepotism and corruption. The amendments were, however, rejected by the judges and struck out leaving only Uhuru and Ruto’s names in the original suit. Oraro ( representing Musyoka/Raila/Mudavadi) saying it is only Uhuru and Ruto who have ICC cases against them – not any other presidential candidate, and that one can’t impute lack of integrity on all candidates- can’t brush everyone with the same broom as no cases was pending for the other candidates. 2. Whether Warsame and Mwilu should disqualify themselves as they newly appointed Court of Appeal Judges – a different judge Justice Isaac Lenaola heard that petition by activist Patrick Njuguna and dismissed it saying the said judges were yet to be ‘oathed’ to the Court of Appeal. 3. Whether to withdraw the case as not all presidential candidates will be represented on it. “We wish to formally withdraw this petition…that does not mean they are off the hook, its tactical retreat,” lawyer Ambrose Wedi who represent petitioners told the court. Withdrawing the case, petitioners called it a ‘tactical’ retreat that will pave way for ‘mother of all petitions’. “We need question of integrity to be investigated and determined, the withdraw is a tactical retreat, the grandmother of all petitions is on its way which will there are no escape,” said Wendi. The judges had no option but to allowed the petitioners to withdraw the case saying it was their constitutional right to do so. “Now they have made up their mind to withdraw the case for tactical reason which is within the rights of the litigators of the petitions, with heavy heart, we allow the petitioner to withdraw with no order to costs in view of the fact the matter is of great public concern and no party should suffer,” said the judges in their ruling, which was read by Judge Mohamed Warsame. Wedi told the court the three-judge bench Thursday that the issue of integrity could not be addressed fully if other presidential aspirants were not part of the lawsuit. However, not all the petitioners were in agreement with the withdrawal, with the International Centre for Policy and Conflict (ICPC) opposing it. ICPC counsel Vincent Lempaa said that the case challenging the eligibility of the two hopefuls is a matter of national interest and should be resolved. “The loss of interest by the petitioners does not extinguish interest in the case by the general public. It’s a matter of public interest we object to the withdraw,” said Lempaa on behalf of ICPC Second, the case now reconstituted is re-filing by the ICPC and hopefully it will continue to full hearing, focusing only to the issues of integrity brought against Uhuru and Ruto for their cases before the ICC. Majanja was the duty judge at the High Court who had the preliminary matter – he progressed it for a bench (3 or5) to hear it. We were also told that the withdraw case which was originally filed by activists Charles Omanga, Mr Patrick Njuguna and Augustine Neto (now Ndiwa MP) will come back as ‘mother of all petitions”. We await with glee to read from it. That is the factual scenario for the cases before the High Court on the Integrity. We can play around with names of the judges to suit your fascinations and skewed viewpoint. Last, I think I have done enough probono work on explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Dec 4, 2012 20:36:43 GMT 3
Sadiq,So far, even the Daily Nation you were warning me against, is a credible source. Your version, or chronicle, does not differ from theirs. This means even if you were charging, and not doing pro-bono, a man like me would not pay you, because you have not added any information a 'disreputable' toilet paper has not narrated! If you are not going to do Herr prof. doctor stuff on me, you know very well your pro-bono stuff wont be missed! But let me sit your easy. [Keep in mind how much it costs the tax-payer, when a panel of five judges goes around ten months on a single case! Lawyers and judges rarely pay their own bills, so they do not know the ruthless toll of the taxi-meter. --The first thing I would ask the CJ is: how much money has this case costed the tax-payer in ten months to reach exactly the same starting point?] Sadik, this is the crux of the matter. This is what is wrong with the original panel of Judges, where your friend Warsame was prominent, if not the pontiff. When your hear of a petition, to be based on a reading on chapter six, the integrity clauses, on the eligibility of one or two presidential candidates, how many seconds does it take you, pray, as a judge or lawyer or independent thinker, to recognize, that the common sense thing to do, and lay the issue constitutionally to rest, putting down a binding ruling, is to VET ALL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES/ASPIRANTS ON THE SAME CHAPTER? THIS IS THE COMMON SENSE OPTION. To use this case as a benchmark throughout the line, and end the controversy. Otherwise the law looks parochial and selective. Lopsy. To single only two [aspirants] because of the ICC indictment, is to pretend other issues, theft & graft & fraud --see Goldenberg, KKV and the rest of the scams in public domain which touch on the names of the others, are not warrants contestable within the concept of integrity as outlined in this chapter six. Yet they are, I state, after reading that chapter. [Of course the handmaid Eunice Wamalwa brought in 22 amendments to it! so there is actually no integrity chapter to speak of. --See Jakaswanga: 2nd liberation came still-born.] jukwaa.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=6920&page=1But to continue: This recognition, plus the additional fact that this .. issue remains a matter of national importance .., public interest requiring resolution, should [sensibly] have led to a sense of urgency 10 months ago. [Because the election date had been set anyway, and given the nature of legal contestations, a ruling could be reached ---after the elections. [And see my view on that!]Sadik, there is no substitute to common sense backed by logical thinking. the last ten months have been a waste, a circus, where not even any jurisprudence is at show! except the barmy minds of Judge .. ;D The truth is by now, less than a 5 months to elections, with aspirants more or less known, the highest courts should have delivered a position, a ruling, an authoritative interpretation of the boundaries of the integrity clause, such that we would now be able to list all the ills of any particular aspirant, and test it against the supreme court's bar, or standard at law. I do not mind pro-bono lawyers. It is just that not all will do.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Jan 29, 2013 20:57:34 GMT 3
[ to VET ALL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES/ASPIRANTS ON THE SAME CHAPTER? THIS IS THE COMMON SENSE OPTION. To use this case as a benchmark throughout the line, and end the controversy. Otherwise the law looks parochial and selective. Lopsy. To single only two [aspirants] because of the ICC indictment, is to pretend other issues, theft & graft & fraud --see Goldenberg, KKV and the rest of the scams in public domain which touch on the names of the others, are not warrants contestable within the concept of integrity as outlined in this chapter six. Yet they are, .... Updates on the installments of the circus! standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000076141&story_title=Kenya-Raila,-Kalonzo,-Mudavadi-out-of-integrity-suit TECHNICAL HITCH! That is the same place we were half a year ago when Oraro and Oluoch clashed in court! --technicalities! --------------- Five-judge bench to determine Uhuru, Ruto eligibility elections.nation.co.ke/news/-/1631868/1678752/-/p8ra9nz/-/index.htmlSuddenly now time is of such essence that proceedings will be shortened?! circus! |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jan 29, 2013 21:53:40 GMT 3
Jakaswanga:
You missed a key part: "And to show the seriousness and urgency the judges want to determine the petitions, they directed all parties to file their submissions by Friday."
I think we should all applaud our judiciary for recognizing that this matter is serious and urgent. True, the whole business has been going on for a year. But what matters is that we are now reaping the fruits of judicial reform: unlike the old judiciary, this new one is very gung-ho. Serious and urgent. But it required a year of thinking to appreciate how serious and urgent it is. Plus, it has the side-benefit that there will be no time for appeals.
Did you see how even the leading coalitions held their primaries at the last minute, which had the beneficial side-effect that (due to legal constraints!) little, pesky matters (such as the "people's will") could be short-circuited? Anyway ...
A little story: I always fancied myself as a pilot and in my youth I looked into a career in that direction. I was quickly told that I could never qualify because of my sight problems and the need for very thick glasses (then). And no, it's not what you think that caused my sight problems . Anyway ... one of my small boys has the same ideas, so for Xmas, I got him one of the very fancy flight simulators that are readily available these days and which allow you to "fly" on your computer. These things are amazing and very realistic, and one can get all sorts of real data for the flights. In fact, I have "flown" into JKIA more than once. And my little guy "flying" all over Kenya has even discovered lakes and things you can't find on an ordinary map. (E.g. he recently discovered, as we used to say about Speke and Stanely and ..., a Lake Kanyaboli, right there in your backyard!)
I know, I know! You want to know where I am going with all this. Fair enough. It got me thinking about ths history of flight ... in the old days of flying, planes did not have all the electronic gear they have these days. Without such instruments, one had to rely on physical feedback, which was obtained from wherever the body was in contact with the machine; so the best feedback came from where the pilot's body had the largest contact with the body of the plane---one's ar*se. That gave rise to the phrase "flying by the seat of one's pants", and I think we can all agree that that's "better" than "flying by how you feel in your ar*se".
And here we have a whole country flying by ...
|
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Jan 30, 2013 20:16:43 GMT 3
Jakaswanga: You missed a key part: "And to show the seriousness and urgency the judges want to determine the petitions, they directed all parties to file their submissions by Friday." ... This judiciary, protesting her reform credentials, reminds me of a story much told in Nigeria about Ibrahim Maradona Babangida, then the president and grand-master of the political chess-board --he thought. The story goes the stadium was filled with cheering, but the maradona failed to notice that the cheering was amusement at the fact that he was scoring only OWN GOALS! He was a super-skilled player yes, but merely a comedian scoring goal after goal on his own side! So when the coup came and he protested: 'But I am the best! How dare you minions!' Then even Abacha Sunny, the coup leader with no sense of humour, laughed and shook his head: You are tired Ibrahim. You played well. Keep the money. But go home now. Dinner is ready! Leave your shirt with the military, Mr. Maradona. This Judiciary under Mutunga is no doubt a kind of Maradona in the Babangida fashion. Highly skilled and playing well, and wearing the uniform of reform. They read and practice law according to some other constitution we did not promulgate. We cheers their excellencies of the bench! ---But I am not sure whether I would let them keep the money! Because the Kenyan tax-payer is a bit hard-up, meseems! What a shameful charade! |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Feb 1, 2013 20:11:29 GMT 3
Eligibility!
Otishotish, how does legal thinking work from here, given the following realities. The IEBC has issued Uhuru-Ruto [and the rest of the presidential candidates] with their [what I will call certificates of health] papers, thus clearing them for the highest office in the land. Their names will be officially on the ballot, and they are legal-tender candidates. No integrity issues. No chapter six issues.
So what are these judges still eating taxpayer's money about, STILL sitting to determine eligibility? Haven't events not run past them? [which of course has been the plan all along I might add].
Barring the two between now and March 4? No way mesays!
Of course from the start by pure deductive logic some recognised the sham this was meant to be. A circus you opted. I think I do not have a problem with the circus, but I have a problem with how much it costs the taxpayer. Because these learned men are overcharging for their in essence cheap circus services, I would call upon the CJ Mutunga to state his position. He once threatened us, that wife-beaters would not pass the integrity test to contest, but here is the IEBC very comfortable with ICC indictees!
I am not a wife beater myself, but my family boasts real men who indulge that passion, and it always amazes me the kind of satisfied smiles their women spot in the morning, after a long night of making-up activities! I have wondered myself if I should not try this [perverted aphrodisiac] sometimes too. It is for the honour of the real men in my family, and beyond, that I will demand an apology from this irrelevant CJ with no nose for priorities! wife-beaters will ran for any office they want. And fraudulent nominees will represent constituencies of their party's choice. And the CJ will shut up.
His courts have deliberately dilly-dallied forever and left ICC indictees to run for the highest office, he should shut forever on the integrity of wife-beaters! [I forget, Did his own wife accuse him of something similar?
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 1, 2013 20:31:41 GMT 3
Jakaswanga:
You know very well that I am a child when it comes to the Advanced Thinking used in the Kenyan legal system, but I imagine that a High Court ruling in the Uhuruto case would over-rule anything the IEBC had decided. A more interesting case is that of the Sonkos, where, as far as I know, there are no challenges in the courts.
Give Dr. Studs a chance, now that the matter is serious and urgent. By the way, did you see my latest in the ICC thread? Ekaterina gets the application on 22 Jan. On 29 Jan she issues an intermediate decision: "everyone, file all your stuff by 7 Feb, and I will then make the final decision". I remember one instance where Uhuru and Muthaura made an application at 4PM on one day, and at 9AM the following day Ekaterina had the final decision ready. Chop, chop.
Wife-beating, eh? I take it that you've never been to Nyeri ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Feb 1, 2013 22:03:28 GMT 3
Eligibility!Otishotish, how does legal thinking work from here, given the following realities. The IEBC has issued Uhuru-Ruto [and the rest of the presidential candidates] with their [what I will call certificates of health] papers, thus clearing them for the highest office in the land. Their names will be officially on the ballot, and they are legal-tender candidates. No integrity issues. No chapter six issues.So what are these judges still eating taxpayer's money about, STILL sitting to determine eligibility? Haven't events not run past them? [which of course has been the plan all along I might add]. Barring the two between now and March 4? No way mesays! Of course from the start by pure deductive logic some recognised the sham this was meant to be. A circus you opted. I think I do not have a problem with the circus, but I have a problem with how much it costs the taxpayer. Because these learned men are overcharging for their in essence cheap circus services, I would call upon the CJ Mutunga to state his position. He once threatened us, that wife-beaters would not pass the integrity test to contest, but here is the IEBC very comfortable with ICC indictees!I am not a wife beater myself, but my family boasts real men who indulge that passion, and it always amazes me the kind of satisfied smiles their women spot in the morning, after a long night of making-up activities! I have wondered myself if I should not try this [perverted aphrodisiac] sometimes too. It is for the honour of the real men in my family, and beyond, that I will demand an apology from this irrelevant CJ with no nose for priorities! wife-beaters will ran for any office they want. And fraudulent nominees will represent constituencies of their party's choice. And the CJ will shut up. His courts have deliberately dilly-dallied forever and left ICC indictees to run for the highest office, he should shut forever on the integrity of wife-beaters! [I forget, Did his own wife accuse him of something similar? You know I don't share your sentiments about the Kenyan judges or, indeed the Chief Justice. I think you don't understand the role of the judges and the courts in this matter of Uhuru and Ruto cases. You need to understand that the decision to allow people to contest an election is left for the IEBC, a body constituted by statute and therefore has a statutory duty to determine who is eligible. The courts, and in this case the High Court, can only step in under the banner of judicial review. The High Court can review how the decision to allow anyone contest an election was made, and if there is evidence that in making that decision, the IEBC acted unreasonably, taken on board irrelevant facts, or illegally relied upon information to reach the decision it made, whether the decision was unconstitutionally reached (amongst the many issues the court can scrutinize), then the High Court has powers to annul that decision and ask the IEBC to make a fresh decision. Let us not criticize just for the sake of it. |
|
|
|
Post by abdulmote on Feb 1, 2013 22:34:52 GMT 3
You need to understand that the decision to allow people to contest an election is left for the IEBC, a body constituted by statute and therefore has a statutory duty to determine who is eligible. The courts, and in this case the High Court, can only step in under the banner of judicial review. The High Court can review how the decision to allow anyone contest an election was made, and if there is evidence that in making that decision, the IEBC acted unreasonably, taken on board irrelevant facts, or illegally relied upon information to reach the decision it made, whether the decision was unconstitutionally reached (amongst the many issues the court can scrutinize), then the High Court has powers to annul that decision and ask the IEBC to make a fresh decision. A very concise summary of Judicial Review in a nutshell! But as Otish observed hapo juu, the delay in dealing with such a case is inexcusable, to say the least, considering its importance and potential repercussions! Alternatively, the only possible explanation is if the courts have already made up their mind, that their decision is never going to be negative on the duo! Conclusion: The JC are either certainly hypocritical and are playing justice for all' since Kenyans can be classified as a nation of 'incapable of thinking fools', or they are blatantly and extremely reckness in their dealing with the same. I don't know which one is true, yet. |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Feb 1, 2013 22:58:38 GMT 3
Eligibility!Otishotish, how does legal thinking work from here, given the following realities. The IEBC has issued Uhuru-Ruto [and the rest of the presidential candidates] with their [what I will call certificates of health] papers, thus clearing them for the highest office in the land. Their names will be officially on the ballot, and they are legal-tender candidates. No integrity issues. No chapter six issues.So what are these judges still eating taxpayer's money about, STILL sitting to determine eligibility? Haven't events not run past them? [which of course has been the plan all along I might add]. Barring the two between now and March 4? No way mesays! Of course from the start by pure deductive logic some recognised the sham this was meant to be. A circus you opted. I think I do not have a problem with the circus, but I have a problem with how much it costs the taxpayer. Because these learned men are overcharging for their in essence cheap circus services, I would call upon the CJ Mutunga to state his position. He once threatened us, that wife-beaters would not pass the integrity test to contest, but here is the IEBC very comfortable with ICC indictees!I am not a wife beater myself, but my family boasts real men who indulge that passion, and it always amazes me the kind of satisfied smiles their women spot in the morning, after a long night of making-up activities! I have wondered myself if I should not try this [perverted aphrodisiac] sometimes too. It is for the honour of the real men in my family, and beyond, that I will demand an apology from this irrelevant CJ with no nose for priorities! wife-beaters will ran for any office they want. And fraudulent nominees will represent constituencies of their party's choice. And the CJ will shut up. His courts have deliberately dilly-dallied forever and left ICC indictees to run for the highest office, he should shut forever on the integrity of wife-beaters! [I forget, Did his own wife accuse him of something similar? You know I don't share your sentiments about the Kenyan judges or, indeed the Chief Justice. I think you don't understand the role of the judges and the courts in this matter of Uhuru and Ruto cases. You need to understand that the decision to allow people to contest an election is left for the IEBC, a body constituted by statute and therefore has a statutory duty to determine who is eligible. The courts, and in this case the High Court, can only step in under the banner of judicial review. The High Court can review how the decision to allow anyone contest an election was made, and if there is evidence that in making that decision, the IEBC acted unreasonably, taken on board irrelevant facts, or illegally relied upon information to reach the decision it made, whether the decision was unconstitutionally reached (amongst the many issues the court can scrutinize), then the High Court has powers to annul that decision and ask the IEBC to make a fresh decision. Let us not criticize just for the sake of it. Sadik, As the CJ and his courts take their time, the election would be long behind us. Uhuruto having ran and lost or won. Remember your friend Ibrahim who slept for close to a decade on some cases? and only woke up to finish them all in 48 hours when it threatened its career? Some of you lawyers found that brilliant. Sensible people winked and exchanged knowing glances. You lawyers can fool yourselves if you want. Between now and March 4 2013, any court that rules Uhuruto is not eligible will just be a laughing stock. We all know the integrity chapter is dead. Mutunga presided over its death. [Only an idiot would think the two principals Raila and Kibaki would defend the promulgated constitution, their legal subordinates like Orengo, Githu Muigai, Mutula Kilonzo, used to meet to plot the cannibalisation they thought could be swallowed by the public without consequences.] You are a man of the superficials, the forms and protocols which are social conventions concern you most. You are the kind who judges a country by the beauty of her constitution on paper. You would be surprised at the wonders guaranteed for blacks under the apartheid Constitution of south Africa, separate development, and the respect for cultures to germinate fully to their potential. The application of those laws, and the interpretations of the apartheid clauses, was the practice of hell on earth. --But would you know. Now Kenya. Two centers. The IEBC in its official auspice is quite a body. In practice it has been an inept white elephant. We have a thread on it here on Jukwaa. Compromised. But I can just look at how much money they have spent, and relate that to the fact that they have failed to organise voting in the diaspora because it is logistically out of their league, to conclude that they are a useless body.That it inadequate for their core task. Recently, they could not re-enforce party discipline in the rigged elections. They shoved the [filing-in] deadline under mysterious circumstances without quoting the law ---they were intimidated; but they were already irrelevant anyway because they had failed to foresee the pitfalls of a deadline so near to nominations, giving no room for extended conflict resolutions: conflicts arising from the process. The IEBC has merely rubber-stamped the mass rigging of the primaries, majorly by Jubilee and Cord. Better I criticise for the sake of criticising, than you defending without having given the issue a thought. This IEBC, in practice in Kenya, is therefore a body I do not hold as high as you do. They can bar people on the ABCs like Internet degrees; different names or aliases on different IDs; other place of dueling; or doubtful nationality. But chapter 6 of the constitution, and reading/ruling that interprets the integrity [requirement] of a candidate [for any elected office], I will posit, is the terrain of the courts. And Mutunga, in the days he was fresh and loved appearing in the media, made a point of saying that buck will stop with him! Those were the days he was threatening egg and chicken thieves, and drunken women inheritors of the countrysides of Kenya, telling them to forget running for anything! [That was when I started to take a very close interest in chapter six, and wait to see what the CJ would do when his bluff would be called. And Uhuruto would soon call it. Mutunga went dead, because, ye yes, prejudicial to comment on a case that could come before him! Every thought for a penny would read that correct: he had chickened.] BEST OPTION: From other countries, since Kenya is not the only country in the world with legal quagmires. A panel of SOLOMONS, national and international ---commonwealth and independent non commonwealth eminences, to read the chapter, the bills around it and state an opinion. The highest court in our land then, could write dissensions, or concurrence, and the majority opinion would be the ruling on THE INTEGRITY BAR.Every candidate then, as I argued earlier, would then be ran through this benchmark. Tested, vetted against this ruling. The IEBC could have a copy of it if it wanted then. |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Feb 1, 2013 23:14:43 GMT 3
You need to understand that the decision to allow people to contest an election is left for the IEBC, a body constituted by statute and therefore has a statutory duty to determine who is eligible. The courts, and in this case the High Court, can only step in under the banner of judicial review. The High Court can review how the decision to allow anyone contest an election was made, and if there is evidence that in making that decision, the IEBC acted unreasonably, taken on board irrelevant facts, or illegally relied upon information to reach the decision it made, whether the decision was unconstitutionally reached (amongst the many issues the court can scrutinize), then the High Court has powers to annul that decision and ask the IEBC to make a fresh decision. A very concise summary of Judicial Review in a nutshell! But as Otish observed hapo juu, the delay in dealing with such a case is inexcusable, to say the least, considering its importance and potential repercussions! Alternatively, the only possible explanation is if the courts have already made up their mind, that their decision is never going to be negative on the duo! Conclusion: The JC are either certainly hypocritical and are playing justice for all' since Kenyans can be classified as a nation of 'incapable of thinking fools', or they are blatantly and extremely reckness in their dealing with the same. I don't know which one is true, yet. When a case of national importance like this is left to gather dust for a year, then all of a sudden some judge wants submissions and what have you in 3 days, and the election is a month away.. then... Uhuruto is good for at least 40% in the opinion polls. It is geographically majorly localised in MK and Nandi Land, and takes at least 50% of the capital city Nairobi. You talk of barring those two men now because of some sh!t thing called integrity in a country just fresh from massive rigging in the primaries, you will be one hell of a laughing stock judge! Quixotic. I would say, even backed by the law in May, if he wins, President Odinga would not have the guts to order the arrest of Uhuruto. --Why? Coz he can not count on the 60% that want the ICC to continue. He too, will be too compromised to have the cross national support needed to conduct the arrest, and maintain social harmony. |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Feb 1, 2013 23:31:41 GMT 3
Jakaswanga: You know very well that I am a child when it comes to the Advanced Thinking used in the Kenyan legal system, but I imagine that a High Court ruling in the Uhuruto case would over-rule anything the IEBC had decided. A more interesting case is that of the Sonkos, where, as far as I know, there are no challenges in the courts. Give Dr. Studs a chance, now that the matter is serious and urgent. By the way, did you see my latest in the ICC thread? Ekaterina gets the application on 22 Jan. On 29 Jan she issues an intermediate decision: "everyone, file all your stuff by 7 Feb, and I will then make the final decision". I remember one instance where Uhuru and Muthaura made an application at 4PM on one day, and at 9AM the following day Ekaterina had the final decision ready. Chop, chop. Wife-beating, eh? I take it that you've never been to Nyeri ... You know I love to read positions. The law still has to be interpreted, and I love Judges who then explain the thinking behind an opinion they think is right, and the fore edifice as a ruling. That is why Ykaterina used to kill me, and so too the Herr prof. Dr. from the land of Mercedes. Dr. Studds would have pleased me with a ' position', even an academic musing on the word 'integrity' --not the bar-talk about wife-beaters in Ukambani and their lost integrity! Constitutional integrity! I have to admit that, if being indicted for crimes against humanity, even suspect not proven guilty, does not constitute doubtful integrity, doubtful enough to disqualify from the presidency, then I think that word is still a joke in Kenya. Seen ministers in some countries resign coz they were caught on camera spitting on the street [releasing a jet of saliva at a lamp-post]! Behaviour incompatible with being a peoples representative and administrator! Moral flaw!That is a fairy-tale for Kenyans. yet we live in the same world! But your learned friend Mutunga went to Osgoode in Canada. So I treat him the way I treat people in a high-performance environment. An Osgoode graduate can not reason Uhuruto have enough integrity to run for PORK. Even reading the constitution after 22 amendments by Eugene Wamalwa on chapter six!This is why Mutunga is silent. He knows he is checkmated by Kenyan politicians. He is an impotent reformer. Doing clothes reform, hosting champagne parties in a mansion, and he will be in the senate or parliament to swear in Uhuruto and the rest of the thieves who will win their seats!I hope is impotent but not broken completely. |
|
|
|
Post by Mobimba on Feb 1, 2013 23:34:14 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Feb 1, 2013 23:36:48 GMT 3
You need to understand that the decision to allow people to contest an election is left for the IEBC, a body constituted by statute and therefore has a statutory duty to determine who is eligible. The courts, and in this case the High Court, can only step in under the banner of judicial review. The High Court can review how the decision to allow anyone contest an election was made, and if there is evidence that in making that decision, the IEBC acted unreasonably, taken on board irrelevant facts, or illegally relied upon information to reach the decision it made, whether the decision was unconstitutionally reached (amongst the many issues the court can scrutinize), then the High Court has powers to annul that decision and ask the IEBC to make a fresh decision. A very concise summary of Judicial Review in a nutshell! But as Otish observed hapo juu, the delay in dealing with such a case is inexcusable, to say the least, considering its importance and potential repercussions! Alternatively, the only possible explanation is if the courts have already made up their mind, that their decision is never going to be negative on the duo! Conclusion: The JC are either certainly hypocritical and are playing justice for all' since Kenyans can be classified as a nation of 'incapable of thinking fools', or they are blatantly and extremely reckness in their dealing with the same. I don't know which one is true, yet. Court cases take long because procedures and protocols must be followed. One would not expect to file a suit today and get a decision tomorrow. I am not familiar with the delay in this particular case, but I know when the court is ready for hearing, nothing would stop it making its judgement on the matter. I also know the court is much alive to the actual ramification on the ground. After all, the judges are Kenyans who have a direct interest in the well-being of the nation. Let us not assume we have a monopoly over emotional attachment to the motherland. Even the ICC cases take time. The cases against the 4 started in 2010, and three years after the commencement, we are settling down to the hearing before a judgement which may take several years to come. But, because the ICC is under some white people, the three years it has taken to reach a hearing is sanitized and forgotten. I call that inferiority complex. |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 2, 2013 0:01:23 GMT 3
A very concise summary of Judicial Review in a nutshell! But as Otish observed hapo juu, the delay in dealing with such a case is inexcusable, to say the least, considering its importance and potential repercussions! Alternatively, the only possible explanation is if the courts have already made up their mind, that their decision is never going to be negative on the duo! Conclusion: The JC are either certainly hypocritical and are playing justice for all' since Kenyans can be classified as a nation of 'incapable of thinking fools', or they are blatantly and extremely reckness in their dealing with the same. I don't know which one is true, yet. Abdulmote: I agree with you that this is likely to be a case of justice being seen to be done but not actually being done. I haven't seen the legal arguments by the various parties, but as a betting man, at this late stage of the game, my bet is that the ruling will allow the villains to run. The only problem the judges are dealing with is how to put it in a language that can be swallowed. |
|
|
|
Post by abdulmote on Feb 2, 2013 0:09:06 GMT 3
Sadik,
I admire your confidence in our 'J'. It is encouraging. And I also do appreciate your point on the court's calender and what have you. But somethings do merit a seat of priority when it comes to Judicial decisions and strongly believe that this is certainly one of them.
When a matter of such importance and time is of critical essence, the courts cannot afford the luxury of sticking with its calender. Not when the nations' well-being is at stake as in this case, or on matters of life and and death. Not in Kenya or any where in the world for that matter and I am sure you can think of many. The potential repercussions are pretty obvious for any one to contemplate, especially if the decision could be negative as I had stated earlier. Unless of course such a decision will have no considerable consequences, which I think is not the case here, or a negative decision is not anticipated at all!
Having said that, I think it is not fair to assume we bear "inferiority complex" simply for raising a logical and viable criticism on our systems of governance, and by comparing ours to the "whiteman's". Indeed, I believe, as an African nation, we are far behind when it comes to matters of governance. Without doubt, it is by learning to criticise our own shortfalls in comparison to others that we may learn from those who have already been there before us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Feb 2, 2013 0:10:57 GMT 3
JakaswangaYou know I don't share your sentiments about the Kenyan judges or, indeed the Chief Justice. I think you don't understand the role of the judges and the courts in this matter of Uhuru and Ruto cases. You need to understand that the decision to allow people to contest an election is left for the IEBC, a body constituted by statute and therefore has a statutory duty to determine who is eligible. The courts, and in this case the High Court, can only step in under the banner of judicial review. The High Court can review how the decision to allow anyone contest an election was made, and if there is evidence that in making that decision, the IEBC acted unreasonably, taken on board irrelevant facts, or illegally relied upon information to reach the decision it made, whether the decision was unconstitutionally reached (amongst the many issues the court can scrutinize), then the High Court has powers to annul that decision and ask the IEBC to make a fresh decision. Let us not criticize just for the sake of it. Sadik, As the CJ and his courts take their time, the election would be long behind us. Uhuruto having ran and lost or won. Remember your friend Ibrahim who slept for close to a decade on some cases? and only woke up to finish them all in 48 hours when it threatened its career? Some of you lawyers found that brilliant. Sensible people winked and exchanged knowing glances. You lawyers can fool yourselves if you want. Between now and March 4 2013, any court that rules Uhuruto is not eligible will just be a laughing stock. We all know the integrity chapter is dead. Mutunga presided over its death. [Only an idiot would think the two principals Raila and Kibaki would defend the promulgated constitution, their legal subordinates like Orengo, Githu Muigai, Mutula Kilonzo, used to meet to plot the cannibalisation they thought could be swallowed by the public without consequences.] You are a man of the superficials, the forms and protocols which are social conventions concern you most. You are the kind who judges a country by the beauty of her constitution on paper. You would be surprised at the wonders guaranteed for blacks under the apartheid Constitution of south Africa, separate development, and the respect for cultures to germinate fully to their potential. The application of those laws, and the interpretations of the apartheid clauses, was the practice of hell on earth. --But would you know. Now Kenya. Two centers. The IEBC in its official auspice is quite a body. In practice it has been an inept white elephant. We have a thread on it here on Jukwaa. Compromised. But I can just look at how much money they have spent, and relate that to the fact that they have failed to organise voting in the diaspora because it is logistically out of their league, to conclude that they are a useless body.That it inadequate for their core task. Recently, they could not re-enforce party discipline in the rigged elections. They shoved the [filing-in] deadline under mysterious circumstances without quoting the law ---they were intimidated; but they were already irrelevant anyway because they had failed to foresee the pitfalls of a deadline so near to nominations, giving no room for extended conflict resolutions: conflicts arising from the process. The IEBC has merely rubber-stamped the mass rigging of the primaries, majorly by Jubilee and Cord. Better I criticise for the sake of criticising, than you defending without having given the issue a thought. This IEBC, in practice in Kenya, is therefore a body I do not hold as high as you do. They can bar people on the ABCs like Internet degrees; different names or aliases on different IDs; other place of dueling; or doubtful nationality. But chapter 6 of the constitution, and reading/ruling that interprets the integrity [requirement] of a candidate [for any elected office], I will posit, is the terrain of the courts. And Mutunga, in the days he was fresh and loved appearing in the media, made a point of saying that buck will stop with him! Those were the days he was threatening egg and chicken thieves, and drunken women inheritors of the countrysides of Kenya, telling them to forget running for anything! [That was when I started to take a very close interest in chapter six, and wait to see what the CJ would do when his bluff would be called. And Uhuruto would soon call it. Mutunga went dead, because, ye yes, prejudicial to comment on a case that could come before him! Every thought for a penny would read that correct: he had chickened.] BEST OPTION: From other countries, since Kenya is not the only country in the world with legal quagmires. A panel of SOLOMONS, national and international ---commonwealth and independent non commonwealth eminences, to read the chapter, the bills around it and state an opinion. The highest court in our land then, could write dissensions, or concurrence, and the majority opinion would be the ruling on THE INTEGRITY BAR.Every candidate then, as I argued earlier, would then be ran through this benchmark. Tested, vetted against this ruling. The IEBC could have a copy of it if it wanted then.As I have said to Abdul, judges are also Kenyan who, like you and me, have an interest in the good of the country. I doubt that they can let the country down. I know little about Ibrahim and his cases, and it is not for me to throw mud without the full picture. All I care about is that the people who had the full set of facts at their disposal dealt with his case and decided it was not worth sacking him. You are mixing politics with the law. I shall leave you alone with your mixtures, hoping you will yield a sensible solvent. I trust in the professionalism of the judges and if need be they will be able to rule against whomsoever they deem unfit for whatsoever reason they see fit. As you know, I don’t usually mind read and cannot tell what the judges are thinking until that time when they publish their judgment. You mention the likes of Prof Githu, Orengo, Mutula and you accuse them of being sell-outs. Except you, what makes you think everyone else is spineless to stand up for Integrity? I won’t judge the IEBC on the say so of some sloppy journalists. I need evidence on allegation of contravention of the law the IEBC are accused to have breached that is against the statute that brought it into existence. Organizing election abroad, or supervising the nominations are issues I haven’t found in the relevant statute. The CJ can only rule on matters before the Supreme Court where he sits. I wonder why you are asking him to intervene before the matter has reached his domain. He can't sit in the High Court where the matter is at the moment. Lastly, your last paragraph does not apply to a court of law, maybe academic symposiums! |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 2, 2013 0:12:03 GMT 3
As usual, you are trying too hard and also injecting unhelpful emotion. You really need to get over this "white people" thing. (By the way, there are plenty of non-white judges there, starting with the President.) Also, one cannot compare the complexity of the ICC cases with the case we have here. Surely, even you must know the differences.
We all know that judges can speed up things by setting firm deadlines for all the parties involved. The ICC is a good example because a lot of people are looking at how it operates right now: The judges simply say get your stuff in by such and such a date, and that's that; sometimes stuff that's even a day late is not accepted. On top of that, for major decisions, the judges can't just sit indefinitely on their rear ends; decisions must be delivered within certain period. Interestingly, I note that despite "procedures and protocols", the Kenyan courts have recently committed to, for example, handling election petitions within a given period. In that regard, I note that certain petitions from the 2007 elections are stilll unresolved!
Looking at the "progress" of the Uhuruto cases and what has happened at each stage, there is no reason why the judges (Warsame and Co) allowed matters to drag on. Fortunately, another lot is now involved, and things seem to be moving forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 2, 2013 0:20:12 GMT 3
Having said that, I think it is not fair to assume we bear "inferiority complex" simply for raising a logical and viable criticism on our systems of governance, and by comparing ours to the "whiteman's". Indeed, I believe, as an African nation, we are far behind when it comes to matters of governance. Without doubt, it is by learning to criticise our own shortfalls in comparison to others that we may learn from those who have already been there before us. When it comes to the judicial system, there are few things I fear more than running afoul of our Kenyan one. This is unlike that of my Other Country, in which system I have more confidence. In fact, when I visit Kenya, I always inform the embassy of my Other Country. Just in case my people decide to deal with me ... To anyone who claims that's inferiority, may I point out that our judiciary is so rotten that it is currently being thoroughly cleaned-out---again! And we have some foreigners (including a mzungu) to help with that. Please wake me up when Kenya has a judiciary worth talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 2, 2013 0:25:58 GMT 3
As I have said to Abdul, judges are also Kenyan who, like you and me, have an interest in the good of the country. I doubt that they can let the country down. Hmm. And this as judges are being tossed out of their jobs, in yet another effort to deal with a thoroughly rotten judiciary. Oh, wait a minute, this is the patriotism angle, right? Every Kenyan has Kenya's best interest at heart, right? I haven't laughed so long and so loudly since I stopped doing weed. |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 2, 2013 0:35:21 GMT 3
As the CJ and his courts take their time, the election would be long behind us. Uhuruto having ran and lost or won. Remember your friend Ibrahim who slept for close to a decade on some cases? and only woke up to finish them all in 48 hours when it threatened its career? Some of you lawyers found that brilliant. Sensible people winked and exchanged knowing glances. You lawyers can fool yourselves if you want. That was quite a record! According to the Vetting Board, he carried the cases from one place to another the way "a camel carries the the hump on its back". For almost a decade! Then, as soon as his ar*se gets fired, it's all fireworks. No procedures and protocols. ZIP-ZAP! ALL DONE! Even Ruto's 90 years did not go by so quickly. |
|
