|
Post by jakaswanga on Nov 21, 2012 21:19:26 GMT 3
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. 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. Sadik, From the above link by Otishotish I quote this passage. GOOD JUDGMENT AND COMMON SENSE! Vetting: I have been happy to read in the above link, that one of the requirements of a judge is plain common sense. Warsame in failing to recuss himself [as you lawyers put it], showed an abundance of recalcitrant sheepishness. Warsame is disingenuous, seeing he had a date with the board! and following Baraza's marathon unmasking, both of them from activism, I begin to understand Kamalet's perpetual disdain for this distinction activist!But I think I need to compose a long letter to the CJ, to help him along with plain common sense thinking, as is desirable in a good Judge! Now we have judges whose careers are gone by account of the vetting board, yet others who have not yet passed the board --and would in all probability fail the process, promoted on recommendation of the JSC.That is against the principles of natural justice, not to mention that the Judge who derailed the vetting board was scheduled to appear before it! If CJ Mutunga does not see these contradictions and the inherent conflicted situation of the didn't recuss himself fella, and further, not see that they are incompatible with a new look Judiciary aimed at generating confidence in the heart of Kenyans, then it is a tale of the great fish that started to rot at the head. Mutunga himself was publicly vetted in an acclaimed process, if controversial the result was. What makes him think we want to be Judged by unvetted charlatans?
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Nov 21, 2012 23:14:01 GMT 3
I think I will let Mr Nowrojee explain the Vetting Board. allafrica.com/stories/201210161262.html?viewall=1OPINION
It may be that it is the Vetting Board itself that is being vetted in the board of public opinion. The board might even have to put in for review. Some recent shortcomings give weight to this possibility.
After one particular vetting, some lawyers expressed public support for the judge. One of the members of the Vetting Board sent an SMS to those lawyers.
It belittled their standpoint. Its wording gave the impression of bias and vindictiveness. A disinterested Board member does not normally enter into an sms debate with those who disagree with her decision.
Further, the same member had sat through the vetting of the judge, but had not disclosed that one of her own files was among the delayed judgments (which had led to him being found 'unsuitable').
She thus conducted the vetting even though she had an interest in the outcome and even though it might convey an impression of a possible score to settle (by reason of the delay).
This was exactly what the Board had accused Judge Warsame of doing. It had castigated Judge Warsame's alleged default at length on public television.
But the Board did not castigate its own member for the same wrong in the same fashion. Instead, the Board wrote : "The first point that needs to be made is that the Board is fully satisfied that the Member participated in the interview with an open mind, attentive to the evidence and the law and took part in subsequent deliberations without actual bias."
This approach should then be made equally available to Judge Warsame. To the Board's objections about him to the next court, the latter should respond similarly: "The first point that needs to be made is that the Court is fully satisfied that Judge Warsame participated in the ex parte hearing with an open mind, attentive to the evidence and the law and took part in its deliberations without actual bias."
The Board's loud condemnation of Judge Warsame now begins to ring hollow. Secondly, their clearance of the Board Member is clearing themselves. No person can sit as judge in its own cause. This too is illegal.
The Board wrote further on the errant Member: "However, not wishing her further participation in the matter to serve as an undue distraction, the Member, on her own initiative, disqualified herself from continuing with the review."
She should have disqualified herself long earlier. As Lord Reading pointed out in R v Kensington IRC ex parte de Polignac (1917) 1 KB 486 at 497, "I am not impressed by a full disclosure deferred until the deponent's initial statement has been shown to be untrue. A full disclosure is more effective before than it is after the witness has been discredited."
Secondly, it is alarming that this Board holds the view that participation in a legal proceeding by a person with the appearance of bias is only "an undue distraction".
The Board has to come to terms with the democratic ethos of a changed Kenya in which its decisions can be challenged, even on basis it disagrees with, and even wrongly. The Board must not mistake immunity for infallibility. Put shortly, there is a mess.
When the LSK Chair and Secretary joined in, they too did no better. They filled a whole page against Judge Warsame and the head of the judiciary. But against the Board Member and her identical default, they filled not even a line.
If they have really been acting in the public interest they should have filled up equal space condemning the Board Member's identical misdoings. If they were feeling tired, they should simply have copied out their attack on Judge Warsame and changed the names.
Have the Chair and Secretary and the LSK been acting only in the public interest? The other lawyers' group, which was deeply offended by Judge Warsame's conduct, were not offended at all by the Board Member's identical misconduct! Mysterious are the ways in which smear campaigns their non-miracles perform.
All parties need to know whether the Board's decisions have been influenced by these selective condemnations. Is the Board's work being interfered with by persons outside the Board?
The Board's Chairman has already publicly cleared the Chief Justice from any interference with the Board's work. He said that Dr. Mutunga was not interfering with the Board's work. (Daily Nation, 2 October 2012). So then who is? Otherwise why are there now so many poor quality events at the Vetting Board which were not there before?
The writer is a lawyer. This is the last of a three part series on the Vetting Board.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Nov 22, 2012 0:24:00 GMT 3
Conviction by rumours and inneundo. Very clever. I think I will let Mr Nowrojee explain the Vetting Board. allafrica.com/stories/201210161262.html?viewall=1OPINION After one particular vetting, some lawyers expressed public support for the judge. One of the members of the Vetting Board sent an SMS to those lawyers. Naturally, this member of the Vetting Board is not named. Helpfully, this SMS is not reproduced so that we can make our own judgement. We have to take the author's word on the matter. Not so. And so on and so forth. What should be kept in mind is that critisims have been made of Warsame are independent of what the Vetting Board or anyone else did. They are based soley on Warsame's actions, and the man's supporters should address them on that basis; dragging in other matters is unhelpful. Of course, such "addressing" must not be done on the basis of "truth-by-assertion", e.g fantasies such as "the panel found it had jurisdiction and then went on to issue conservatory orders".
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Dec 21, 2012 17:11:53 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Dec 21, 2012 23:24:45 GMT 3
www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000073468&story_title=Kenya-Vetting-Board-finds-five-High-Court-judges-unfit-to-serve"Justice Njagi’s tenure as the principal of the Kenya School of Law came back to haunt him after the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) claimed that he illegally transferred land and acquired a house belonging to the institution.
The judge defended himself saying a man forced him at gun point to sign off the property but the board ruled that failure to disclose the matter for more than 10 years confirmed that he did not have the mettle to decide cases without fear or favour."He, he, he, ... it's rare that someone answers in the affirmative when asked the rhetorical "What's your excuse? Did someone put a gun to your head and make you do it?" That one's right up there with Uhuru's "The Devil made me do it."
|
|