|
Post by tactician on Nov 1, 2012 17:14:30 GMT 3
I am not sure Rao's idea of going direct to the SC is sensible. I think it would be "nice" if they first went to the Court of Appeal. But this matter is urgent, of great importance, and needs to be settled once and for all. In terms of law, Article 163(3)(b)(ii) says that they can go directly to the Supreme Court. Don't think SCOK will entertain this appeal - they will push it back to CA. SCOK will always seek to have the matter ventilated in lower courts so that by the time the case reaches it, all angles have been filtered & explored - and the scope for appeal has been narrowed significantly. And there's a precedent on this delivered this year. Let them appeal at CA quickly, seek priority hearings and dispose of it at the earliest beforea appealing to
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 1, 2012 18:15:53 GMT 3
I think it would be "nice" if they first went to the Court of Appeal. But this matter is urgent, of great importance, and needs to be settled once and for all. In terms of law, Article 163(3)(b)(ii) says that they can go directly to the Supreme Court. Don't think SCOK will entertain this appeal - they will push it back to CA. SCOK will always seek to have the matter ventilated in lower courts so that by the time the case reaches it, all angles have been filtered & explored - and the scope for appeal has been narrowed significantly. And there's a precedent on this delivered this year. Let them appeal at CA quickly, seek priority hearings and dispose of it at the earliest beforea appealing to That's an interesting view. Shall we place bets? ;D Mine is that Mutunga will do the right thing and have the matter quickly disposed of by the SC.
|
|
|
Post by tactician on Nov 1, 2012 18:28:33 GMT 3
Don't think SCOK will entertain this appeal - they will push it back to CA. SCOK will always seek to have the matter ventilated in lower courts so that by the time the case reaches it, all angles have been filtered & explored - and the scope for appeal has been narrowed significantly. And there's a precedent on this delivered this year. Let them appeal at CA quickly, seek priority hearings and dispose of it at the earliest beforea appealing to That's an interesting view. Shall we place bets? ;D Mine is that Mutunga will do the right thing and have the matter quickly disposed of by the SC. First, the Article of the katiba that you have quoted is not relevant to this as there is no legislation allowing SCOK to hear an appeal directly from any other court apart from the CA. The correct article is 163 (6) on which SCOK has already given a precedent sayng: "Notwithstanding that the Supreme Court, indeed, has the jurisdiction to hear the reference application, we uphold the preliminary objections, and decline to give an Advisory Opinion on the date of the next general election."
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 1, 2012 20:01:41 GMT 3
If those special circumstances are not clearly spelt out in the constitution, then the rights supercede everything else. In my Other Country, where people routinely sue on being fired, these would not be a problem. I'll just give a couple of first examples: I don't see why it should be impossible to be fair in considering this. Example: In the last 2 years, my employer has fired two people who, as long as they sat in their offices, were narrowly technically competent in their work. But their personal manner left a great deal to be desired, especially in relation to people outside the organization. They were let go and ran to lawyers, who told them that as long as due process had been followed, they had no legal leg to stand on. Example: There is currently a scandal or sorts involving senior people in the US Army. One of the generals likely to go is one whose style has been described, by the US Inspector General, as consisting of "“management by blowtorch and pliers.” He might be good with his guns, but apparently that's not enough. This is a very reasonable expectation for such a job, and there is no reason why an evaluation of such cannot be fair and reasonable. Example: It is not unusual for my employer to lose people who cannot perform in this regard, as it is an essential component of what we do. There is no need to go on with the rest of the list, which reflects what the public would like of those public offices. I think having people with the listed charactristics would go a long way in restoring public confidence in the judiciary, which is what the vetting is largely about.
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Nov 1, 2012 20:03:46 GMT 3
[ SCOK will always seek to have the matter ventilated in lower courts so that by the time the case reaches it, all angles have been filtered & explored - and the scope for appeal has been narrowed significantly. In a functional, that is 'normally' functioning justice apparatus, this would be logical and inescapable protocol: Higher courts using the lower courts to 'filter and explore all angels' as the above correspondent, tactician, aptly put it. But in Kenya where we are trying to emerge from the rotten system where the Ibrahims and Warsames sleep on judgments for years, the SCOK declining to fast-track these cases of national importance, cases dealing with uncertainties due to a new constitution in an interim, improvisational stage --- eg elections date; eligibility of some leading candidates for PORK; do chiefs have job guarantee in the new counties?; is the vetting board autonomous or not?---- points more to a deliberate delaying tactic, and constitutional sabotage. The case on eligibility of Uhuruto for instance, where Kalonzo Mudavadi and Raila are later enjoined, is gathering dust a year on. This is when a higher court should have declared the junior court negligent and, itself, gone to study and deliver a ruling. A well-thought out, reasoned and grounded in law and its new spirit. I would have loved to muse with Kamalet that these long process build up a body of jurisprudence [for later study and posterity], but with Warsame ruling that the enjoining of Kalonzo Raila and Mudavadi were technically, or procedurally incorrectly filed, this Kamale hope looks more of an illusion. I need not remind that I did enjoy reading the jurisprudent dissentions of Herr Dr prof Kaul, the German at ICC, and it would be great to have Mutunga's boys and girls build such a body of thoughtful work! But I know Mutunga runs a jua-kali brain trust! On a second note at that, we have the records of these judges and there earlier attempts at judgments. These are not worth jurisprudence, and it is this reason, INCOMPETENCE, thaat they are being vetted out. So it is a bit too late in the day to expect old dogs like Riaga and Jean Gacheche to develop thinking capacities outside their corrupt bank accounts! My real fear which I repeat is this: CJ Mutunga and his outfit will wake up next year to the fact that no Kenyan trusts them to deliver a just ruling. Remember Ruto's response when Karua told the Pentagon to go court if they disputed the Kivuitu results!Mid March next year if things go wrong: who really, would be bothered to go for justice in a court chaired by Warsame, Ibrahim and the rest of the gang whose human rights have been violated by the vetting board? I think it would be "nice" if they first went to the Court of Appeal. But this matter is urgent, of great importance, and needs to be settled once and for all. In terms of law, Article 163(3)(b)(ii) says that they can go directly to the Supreme Court. Don't think SCOK will entertain this appeal - they will push it back to CA. SCOK will always seek to have the matter ventilated in lower courts so that by the time the case reaches it, all angles have been filtered & explored - and the scope for appeal has been narrowed significantly. And there's a precedent on this delivered this year. Let them appeal at CA quickly, seek priority hearings and dispose of it at the earliest beforea appealing to
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 1, 2012 20:26:53 GMT 3
I would have loved to muse with Kamalet that these long process build up a body of jurisprudence [for later study and posterity], but with Warsame ruling that the enjoining of Kalonzo Raila and Mudavadi were technically, or procedurally incorrectly filed, this Kamale hope looks more of an illusion So far, the only jurisprudence being created is on how to drag out a case without making any real decision and how to go around in circles (with people being thrown out the front door and then being sneaked back in through the back door). Forget the Teuton, and go read our own man from Nyalgunga (the Nigerian one), which man also happens to be a judge in the Kenyan cases. Unlike your German friend, who had a "legitimate" reason to give a separate opinion, Judge Eboe-Osuji is part of a unanimous decision but feels compelled to explain, in about 60 extra pages!!!, why he agrees. Like the Herr Prof. Dr, he expects to be studied by posterity. But unlike the Herr Prof. Dr, he is not shy about it, and our man starts by stating that he is in the business of creating jurisprudence. Marvellous reading, starting on page 74 here: www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/2EB17676-3A20-426D-874A-6F45D461F2CC/285050/Decisiononthedefencerequestforateorarystayofprocee.pdfIncidentally, this decision has implications for anyone who dreams that lack of "GoK evidence", issues with witnesses, or whatever can hinder the Kenyan cases, but that's a subject for another thread.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 2, 2012 1:44:11 GMT 3
First, the Article of the katiba that you have quoted is not relevant to this as there is no legislation allowing SCOK to hear an appeal directly from any other court apart from the CA. Huh? You may be right, and perhaps I may have misunderstood something. Why would this here legislation not be enough? THE SUPREME COURT ACT 201117. The Supreme Court shall not grant leave to appeal directly to it against a decision made, a conviction entered, or a sentence imposed in proceedings in any court or tribunal, other than the Court of Appeal, unless in addition to being satisfied that it is necessary, in the interests of justice, for the Supreme Court to hear and determine the proposed appeal, it is also satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances that justify taking the proposed appeal directly to the Supreme Court.Article 163(6): The Supreme Court may give an advisory opinion at the request of the national government, any State organ, or any county government with respect to any matter concerning county government.The AG claims that he will appeal the High Court ruling. How would he do that under this, which allows only seeking an advisory opinion?
|
|
|
Post by tactician on Nov 2, 2012 11:11:09 GMT 3
First, the Article of the katiba that you have quoted is not relevant to this as there is no legislation allowing SCOK to hear an appeal directly from any other court apart from the CA. Huh? You may be right, and perhaps I may have misunderstood something. Why would this here legislation not be enough? THE SUPREME COURT ACT 201117. The Supreme Court shall not grant leave to appeal directly to it against a decision made, a conviction entered, or a sentence imposed in proceedings in any court or tribunal, other than the Court of Appeal, unless in addition to being satisfied that it is necessary, in the interests of justice, for the Supreme Court to hear and determine the proposed appeal, it is also satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances that justify taking the proposed appeal directly to the Supreme Court.Article 163(6): The Supreme Court may give an advisory opinion at the request of the national government, any State organ, or any county government with respect to any matter concerning county government.The AG claims that he will appeal the High Court ruling. How would he do that under this, which allows only seeking an advisory opinion? I missed the Supreme Court Act, thanks for pointing it out. Nevertheless, the i highly doubt that SC will hear any direct appeal for the reasons I pointed out earlier - that as the final court, you want to decide on very narrowly defined matters which people disagree on. Otherwise, if the SC hears a direct appeal, the matters are broad and it may end up setting a precedent that's too broad. As you can see in today's papers, the AG is already appealing to the CA
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Nov 5, 2012 22:55:22 GMT 3
tactician/otishotish,Take note of the following report. Though I do not understand why it is not on the website of the LSK! www.citizennews.co.ke/news/2012/l....-boycott-courtsLSK said that it will hold an extra ordinary meeting on Thursday to deliberate on the issue. The body through its chairman Eric Mutua has further said it will be seeking to petition Kenyans to change the law to send home all the Judges and have them vetted afresh. Mutua told the press today that they will be seeking to get signatures of one million Kenyans to push for the change of the law. LSK said that its members will not attend any proceedings should any of the Judges found to be unsuitable to hold office preside over cases. The High Court issued a court order less than two weeks ago stopping the degazetting of appellate Judges Riaga Amollo, Joseph Nyamu, Emmanuel O’Kubasu, and Samuel Bosire and High Court Judge Jeanne Gacheche who were found unsuitable to continue serving in the Judiciary. Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board Chairman Sharad Rao led his team to appeal the decision of the High Court to have the five Judges reinstated. The High Court decision stirred a lot of controversy between the members of the Judiciary, LSK and the civil society. LSK chairman had earlier on warned the Judiciary against interfering with the vetting process saying that some Judges were being shielded by the third arm of the government. Pressure is now mounting on the High Court to quash its decision or the Court of Appeal to rule in favour of the Vetting Board. By Koome Kimonye----------------------------------------------------- PS: Please ponder, what would really be the situation in the country if the LSK boycotted the courts of Mutunga and his recycled Judges who failed the vetting process? Funny, Huh?? Read more: jukwaa.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=5500&page=28#ixzz2BNaqTBq8
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Nov 8, 2012 17:05:02 GMT 3
Interesting thread. I totally support the High Court - their decision is first-class.
High Court has wide berth on jurisdiction and unless specifically mentioned in the Constitution, cannot be wished away, especially by a body constituted through an Act of Parliament. Rao must be told in no uncertain terms - paraphrasing Roosevelt - no man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask Rao's permission when we ask him to obey it.
The action at the High Court was a case within a case! Five judges challenged the way their vetting was done through judicial review actions.
5 Member bench High Court had the pre-hearing issues and established that it has jurisdiction and that no action ( including freezing the degazettement) should be taken until the formal determination of the specific issues raised in the judicial reviews. The matters were referred to full hearing. That is very prudent of the High Court.
The offended party can appeal - and yes there is a channel to the Supreme Court - direct, obviously with leave ( permission) from the Supreme Court itself.
Tactician - remember our argument on leapfrog appeals. This is one of them.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Nov 12, 2012 10:59:39 GMT 3
The Rao board is not being clever in its handling of the matter. If Warsame was to appear before them next Thursday, if the board finds him unsuitable for this decision then they will have played into his hands. I have held the view that the board should have appealed the injunction and also moved the scheduled hearing of the Warsame matter until the case is heard and determined. As it stands the case has not been heard and only an injuction to stop the board from re-hearing the Ibrahim case and allowed the matter decided and which would have been inevitably in the boards favour! Kamale, I actually think that this Warsame guy has put the vetting board in a very awkward position than the board seems to realize. Could this have been Mutunga's plot all along? I will be waiting to see how this ends with a lot of interest. Mmkuu Now what do you have to say with Warsame being promoted to Judge of the Appeal Court? This is even before he has been vetted - so you must wonder the message the judiciary is passing on to the Vetting Board and Kenya as regards Warsame!
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Nov 12, 2012 11:07:56 GMT 3
Kamale, I actually think that this Warsame guy has put the vetting board in a very awkward position than the board seems to realize. Could this have been Mutunga's plot all along? I will be waiting to see how this ends with a lot of interest. Mmkuu Now what do you have to say with Warsame being promoted to Judge of the Appeal Court? This is even before he has been vetted - so you must wonder the message the judiciary is passing on to the Vetting Board and Kenya as regards Warsame! Kamale, I saw this and came to the conclusion that Mutunga has decided to do what pleases him and his friends regardless (if you know the, mta do? attitude. The vetting exercise is being rendered useless by none other than the CJ himself and a clique in the JSC
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Nov 12, 2012 12:39:41 GMT 3
Now what do you have to say with Warsame being promoted to Judge of the Appeal Court? This is even before he has been vetted - so you must wonder the message the judiciary is passing on to the Vetting Board and Kenya as regards Warsame! KamaletWhere is the evidence that Warsame has been promoted? Any link?
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Nov 12, 2012 17:31:24 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Nov 12, 2012 22:10:42 GMT 3
Huh? others have lost their careers because of this vetting process, while others are going places without having passed through it?? What the heck do we call this, ala?The vetting was merely a parochial instrument to eliminate a select few? But let us now wait for some lawyers to have the courts seek to stop unvetted Judges like Warsame from automatic promotion! The judiciary is back to where it was before Mutunga! traffic police reputation!
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Nov 12, 2012 22:54:37 GMT 3
I think we must be fair, here. Warsame and many others across the legal fraternity have only been recommended to the President. The list is very long - there are lawyers from all walk of life, academics, sitting judicial officers and so on. I imagine when the recommendation is accepted, then the vetting will kick in especially for the sitting judges. Thus, picking on Warsame is witch-hunt as it stands.
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Nov 13, 2012 4:46:49 GMT 3
Meanwhile the LSK is collecting 2M signatures to initiate a constitutional change to allow the sending home of all Warsames and Ibrahims, for the vetting to start all over again.
Not sure how the LSK will maneuver the parliamentary process for the envisaged change.
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Nov 13, 2012 21:18:05 GMT 3
I think we must be fair, here. Warsame and many others across the legal fraternity have only been recommended to the President. The list is very long - there are lawyers from all walk of life, academics, sitting judicial officers and so on. I imagine when the recommendation is accepted, then the vetting will kick in especially for the sitting judges. Thus, picking on Warsame is witch-hunt as it stands. Ndugu Sadik, Warsame, unvetted, saw no contradiction in him sitting in judgment of the vetting body he was scheduled to appear before. He subsequently ruled to stop its proceedings! A conflicted man saving his own neck? I am sure you have followed the subsequent controversy. Warsame cast himself, knowingly or through negligent thinking, into the role of a villain who derailed the self-cleansing rituals of the judiciary whose reputation under the previous dispensation was naught. He is archetype of the monsters from the past the vetting is meant to weed out! ---No witch hunt! Just straight hunting down!
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Nov 15, 2012 12:35:40 GMT 3
I think we must be fair, here. Warsame and many others across the legal fraternity have only been recommended to the President. The list is very long - there are lawyers from all walk of life, academics, sitting judicial officers and so on. I imagine when the recommendation is accepted, then the vetting will kick in especially for the sitting judges. Thus, picking on Warsame is witch-hunt as it stands. Ndugu Sadik, Warsame, unvetted, saw no contradiction in him sitting in judgment of the vetting body he was scheduled to appear before. He subsequently ruled to stop its proceedings! A conflicted man saving his own neck? I am sure you have followed the subsequent controversy. Warsame cast himself, knowingly or through negligent thinking, into the role of a villain who derailed the self-cleansing rituals of the judiciary whose reputation under the previous dispensation was naught. He is archetype of the monsters from the past the vetting is meant to weed out! ---No witch hunt! Just straight hunting down! JakaswangaWarsame is a High Court Judge, properly appointed. When he appears before the vetting board, he will either be vetted to proceed or thrown out. Until that time, he is and remains a High Court Judge. A High Court Judge is to preside over judicial review application. Where such an application has been made, it is for the High Court Judge to preside. If that happens to be Warsame, so be it. He cannot be expected to abdicate his duties as a High Court judge because the vetting board as yet to invite him for vetting. The fact that he has yet to go before the vetting board is everything to do with the board not Warsame. Further, cases are allocated at the High Court through a rota basis - no individual judge can actually ask for and be given a particular case to hear. The fact that Warsame presided the application against the vetting board does not mean anything. If not him, it could have gone to another judge. What should matter is the prudence of his judgement. If people feel he is wrong, then there is the appeal route to be taken. That is the mature way to progress the subject matter of the judgement. For your information, Warsame is a new breed of judges from the activist background. I doubt if he fits within the status quo cliché.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Nov 15, 2012 14:04:38 GMT 3
Sadik
Please do not give the thought that your support of Warsame is religion based.
Warsame knew very well that he was yet to meet the vetting board and yet went ahead to sit in judgement over the vetting board! He should have disqualified himself from the very beginning on account of the fact that any decision he takes would be construed as intended to influence his appearance before the board.
Now even after that blunder, the JSC goes ahead and promotes him to an Appeal court judge! Are you still convinced that this is not an affront on the work of the vetting board however much you might want to disagree with the board?
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Nov 15, 2012 14:26:56 GMT 3
Sadik Please do not give the thought that your support of Warsame is religion based. Warsame knew very well that he was yet to meet the vetting board and yet went ahead to sit in judgement over the vetting board! He should have disqualified himself from the very beginning on account of the fact that any decision he takes would be construed as intended to influence his appearance before the board. Now even after that blunder, the JSC goes ahead and promotes him to an Appeal court judge! Are you still convinced that this is not an affront on the work of the vetting board however much you might want to disagree with the board? KamaletDon't be silly! There is no religion base for my support. The High Court when suspending the operations of the Vetting Board was presided over by three (3) judges - Mohamed Warsame, George Odunga and George Kimondo. Warsame and Odunga ruled that the issues raised by the Centre for Human Rights Democracy were not trifling, and added that the court had adequate powers to grant relief in the event of contravention. But, Kimondo dissented. No where in the long judgement was it raised that any of the three judges was not yet vetted and should not have heard the application. The Vetting Board was represented by lawyers and should have asked for the recusation. So, we must stop the unnecessary witch-hunt against Warsame.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Nov 15, 2012 21:22:37 GMT 3
Sadik Please do not give the thought that your support of Warsame is religion based. Warsame knew very well that he was yet to meet the vetting board and yet went ahead to sit in judgement over the vetting board! He should have disqualified himself from the very beginning on account of the fact that any decision he takes would be construed as intended to influence his appearance before the board. Now even after that blunder, the JSC goes ahead and promotes him to an Appeal court judge! Are you still convinced that this is not an affront on the work of the vetting board however much you might want to disagree with the board? KamaletDon't be silly! There is no religion base for my support. The High Court when suspending the operations of the Vetting Board was presided over by three (3) judges - Mohamed Warsame, George Odunga and George Kimondo. Warsame and Odunga ruled that the issues raised by the Centre for Human Rights Democracy were not trifling, and added that the court had adequate powers to grant relief in the event of contravention. But, Kimondo dissented. No where in the long judgement was it raised that any of the three judges was not yet vetted and should not have heard the application. The Vetting Board was represented by lawyers and should have asked for the recusation. So, we must stop the unnecessary witch-hunt against Warsame. Sadik You miss the point. No one has an issue with the judgement by Warsame...he presided over the case and yes went ahead to issue a ruling that stopped the vetting board from working. The problem people have with Warsame is on his sitting in on a case regarding a board that he is due to meet. Good judgement would have meant that he should have recused himself from hearing matter regarding the board until he has appeared before it and gotten cleared.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 15, 2012 21:33:10 GMT 3
No where in the long judgement was it raised that any of the three judges was not yet vetted and should not have heard the application. The Vetting Board was represented by lawyers and should have asked for the recusation. Sadik: I like your "beside-the-box" thinking, but facts can be rather awkward. The Vetting Board's lawyers did in fact ask that Warsame recuse himself. That did not happen; likewise, the three ignored the request that they first consider the jurisdictional issue. These points were again emphasized by the Vetting Board in its subsequent statement, which was in fact a letter to the Chief Justice. In that letter you will find the following 8. In the present matter, a judge who is himself due to be interviewed by the Board on the 16th of October 2012, issued a stay which purported to paralyze all operations of the Board for 14 days, severely interfering with the Board’s work. This order was issued despite a request that the judge recuse himself and that the Court first determine the issue of whether it has jurisdiction to hear the matter at all.It says a great deal about Warsame that given such a request and what was to all an obvious conflict of interest, he refused to recuse himself and, worse, went on to stop the board's operations. (Of course, from his point of view it was clever, given that his vetting, which should have taken place a month ago, is now nowhere in sight.)
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Nov 15, 2012 23:25:06 GMT 3
No where in the long judgement was it raised that any of the three judges was not yet vetted and should not have heard the application. The Vetting Board was represented by lawyers and should have asked for the recusation. Sadik: I like your "beside-the-box" thinking, but facts can be rather awkward. The Vetting Board's lawyers did in fact ask that Warsame recuse himself. That did not happen; likewise, the three ignored the request that they first consider the jurisdictional issue. These points were again emphasized by the Vetting Board in its subsequent statement, which was in fact a letter to the Chief Justice. In that letter you will find the following 8. In the present matter, a judge who is himself due to be interviewed by the Board on the 16th of October 2012, issued a stay which purported to paralyze all operations of the Board for 14 days, severely interfering with the Board’s work. This order was issued despite a request that the judge recuse himself and that the Court first determine the issue of whether it has jurisdiction to hear the matter at all.It says a great deal about Warsame that given such a request and what was to all an obvious conflict of interest, he refused to recuse himself and, worse, went on to stop the board's operations. (Of course, from his point of view it was clever, given that his vetting, which should have taken place a month ago, is now nowhere in sight.) Kamalet and OtishAs I have said, above, Warsame did not sit for and deliver the judgement on his own, hence he individually cannot be asked to recuse himself. The whole bench must be asked to stand aside, and reading the judgement there has been no petition to recuse the bench made to the Court. I doubt if that letter, some of which you reproduced, was referring to Warsame. As I said, he sat with two other Judges, and made a majority judgement alongside Onduga. Why would the letter you reproduce only have one judge as a reference point when they were more? Second, judgement are challenged by appeal not letters to the CJ. At least one would expect Rao, pretending to be a lawyer of some repute, to know that little requirement. Third, the part of the letter you reproduced seems daft. Judges considered the jurisdictional point, first, and found out that they had jurisdiction to proceed and, then, proceeded to issue a 'conservatory orders' ( letting things stand as they are) before sending the file to CJ to constitute a large bench of 5 judges for the merit hearing. As it stand, that Court did not issue a final judgement on this matter. Here is the judgement, kenyalaw.org/CaseSearch/view_preview1.php?link=21190206588864522914418It seems to me Warsame has been turned into an excuse to blame, and Jukwaa as microcosm of Kenya, as also throwing mud, just as the country, at him.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 16, 2012 1:02:29 GMT 3
Kamalet and OtishAs I have said, above, Warsame did not sit for and deliver the judgement on his own, hence he individually cannot be asked to recuse himself. The whole bench must be asked to stand aside, and reading the judgement there has been no petition to recuse the bench made to the Court. Interesting. Why should the entire bench be asked to recuse itself if there is a problem with just one member? The letter refers to a judge whose vetting interview was scheduled for 16 Oct 2012. According to the Vetting Board's schedule www.jmvb.or.ke/images/documents/high_court_vetting.pdfthe two judges due to be interviewed on that day were Warsame and Raphael Karanja. Karanja was not involved in the matter of the letter. Therefore. The letter was not intended to appeal a judgment. Among other things, the letter was expressing discontent about the suitability of one of the judges to sit on that case despite requests for a recusal. Justice Rao, despite "pretending to be a lawyer", seems to know something about the law and how the judiciary and its various offices function. (The Vetting Board is handling certain matters through formal appeals.) Quite a few Kenyans have faith in him and the other members of the Vetting Board. I reproduced it to address the boldly-asserted claim that Warsame was not asked to recuse himself. I read the document, ages ago and again recently. As usual, I may have missed something. So please help me here. I note that one of the questions the judges were supposed to consider was 1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition or matters arising from the powers mandate and duties of the Vetting Board.They clear state so. But nowhere in the ruling do I see that they actually considered the matter. Would you please point me to the relevant part of the ruling---in particular to their finding as regards jurisdiction. The Vetting Board too appears to have missed it, as you say. So did the 5-panel judge that a month later devoted pages to the same issue.
|
|