supreme court verdict on election date

[nereah]

Supreme Court judges from left: Njoki Ndung'u, Jackton Ojwang, Philip Tunoi and Chief Justice Willy Mutunga during a November 15, 2011 sitting. The Court declined to give directions on the date of the next General Election. PAUL WAWERU
courtesy of daily nation

The Supreme Court has declined to give directions on the date of the next General Election.Instead, it referred the matter to the High Court.

In a ruling delivered by the Supreme Court president Dr Willy Mutunga on behalf of the full bench Tuesday, the court declared that even though they have jurisdiction to give advisory opinion in the matter, they declined to exercise that discretion.

�We decline to exercise our discretion to give such an opinion with regard to the date of the next general and reserve our reasons which will be given in a ruling upon notice to the parties,� said Justice Mutunga.

The court directed that petitions filed in the High Court by Kilome MP Harun Mwau and lawyer Mugambi Imanyara which had been stopped pending the direction of the Supreme Court be taken back to the Constitutional and Human Rights Division for hearing on priority and on a day-to-day basis.

Mr Mwau and Mr Imanyara had filed petitions in the High Court seeking a determination of the date of the next polls, but they were stayed to wait the outcome of the same application filed by the Interim Independent Electoral Commission before the Supreme Court.

The electoral body wanted the court to determine the election dates of the president, members of the national assembly, the senate, governors and members of the County Assemblies as provided for in the Constitution.

It argued that the confusion raging as to when the elections shall be held must be resolved immediately to enable it begin planning for the conduct of the General Election and that there is ambiguity in interpreting the Constitution as it gives conflicting formula.
Share This Story
Share

The application was opposed by Mr Mwau who submitted that the Supreme Court has no authority to give advisory opinion on matters of Constitutional interpretation, which he argued was a reserve of the High Court.

He argued that Article 163 (6) of the Constitution limits the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court to matters relating to the running of County government, and that it will be usurping powers of the High Court.

Through lawyer Ian Maina, the Kilome MP submitted that if the court went ahead to issue its advisory opinion, it will be non-binding since it wouldn�t have any precedential value and that the decision could lead to the dissolution of Parliament.

[nereah]

it is like this is one big victory for stickler of matters statute, john harun mwau


www.nation.co.ke/News/politics/Mwau+says+Supreme+Court+has+no+power+to+rule+on+polls+date+/-/1064/1266840/-/pp012m/-/index.html

[nereah]

to jukwaa's analysts and legal minds..... sadik, colonel brisk,sheriasafi, omwenga, miguna miguna et al,

help me understand:

1.does the court really have a right not to disclose the basis for such a verdict?

2.isn't this not inimical to the new dispensation that wily mutunga and sister nancy are spearheading?

3. what message is the last court of resort in the land sending (precedence) to its customers, citizenry and more importantly investors who had hoped it would eliminate the political uncertainty in the land?

4.with this precedence, how sure are we that presidential election dispute for instance,could be above the moi intrigue culture should wily mutunga & co be looked upon for guidance next year?

[nok]

From a lay man's view point.

Bad precedence !

With this ambiguous Ruling or should I say Misruling the court

shows weakness and with that the risk of losing perceptual Trust.

[nok]

On the contrary.

All courts, other than the Supreme Court, are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court (this is possibly to ensure that the Supreme Court can change/reverse a decision it has made in the past). Further, the Supreme Court shall make rules for the exercise of its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court is constitutionally mandated to:

◦Hear appeals from the Court of Appeal
◦Hear appeals from any other court or tribunal as prescribed by national legislation. However the hearing of these two forms of appeal is subject to the following rules:
◦The Supreme Court can hear an appeal in any case involving the application/interpretation of the proposed Constitution
◦In any case in which either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal certifies that a matter of general public concern is involved. However, if the Court of Appeal certifies a matter to be of general public concern, the Supreme Court can affirm, vary or overturn such certification by the Court of Appeal.
◦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 Supreme Court has the very important function of hearing petitions in the Supreme Court challenging the election of the President.
An Act of Parliament may make further provision for the operation of the Supreme Court.

1.The constitution does not allow the SC to give advisory opinion concerning national government. It only allows matters pertaining to the counties.

2. The SC can only make a decision only after a subordinate court has made one. Now , the High court did not make a ruling as to the date of elections or on matters of Interpretation of the constitution as to when the elections should be held.

From 1 & 2, I seem to agree with the SC that the matter should first be addressed to the fullest by the High court. Should there be an appeal thereafter, then the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court comes into play.

[merlin]

Another Laymans view,

This is a learning experience

I often see the judiciary being used as a menu of options in which one can select the court, the judge or timing to best suit your case.
However the judiciary is structured and I consider the High Court and the Supreme Court as guarding over the judiciary. If they give judgement over a case in a lower court than it is a judgement over the quality of judiciary and not over the case sec.
Although their judgement is valid for the outcome of the case it really should be seen as a verdict over the judiciary.
This first case of the Supreme Court means; it does not place itself as another choice on the judiciary menu.

[mzee]

nereah,
I find the ruling a little funny. WHy on earth could they not decided the date of elections? I thought that they are the top organ when it comes to matter of constitutional interpretation. Why chcken out when kenyans were looking up to them. What a bad start for the bunch.

[tactician]

Nov 15, 2011 15:57:28 GMT 3 nok said:

On the contrary.

All courts, other than the Supreme Court, are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court (this is possibly to ensure that the Supreme Court can change/reverse a decision it has made in the past). Further, the Supreme Court shall make rules for the exercise of its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court is constitutionally mandated to:

◦Hear appeals from the Court of Appeal
◦Hear appeals from any other court or tribunal as prescribed by national legislation. However the hearing of these two forms of appeal is subject to the following rules:
◦The Supreme Court can hear an appeal in any case involving the application/interpretation of the proposed Constitution
◦In any case in which either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal certifies that a matter of general public concern is involved. However, if the Court of Appeal certifies a matter to be of general public concern, the Supreme Court can affirm, vary or overturn such certification by the Court of Appeal.
◦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 Supreme Court has the very important function of hearing petitions in the Supreme Court challenging the election of the President.
An Act of Parliament may make further provision for the operation of the Supreme Court.

1.The constitution does not allow the SC to give advisory opinion concerning national government. It only allows matters pertaining to the counties.

2. The SC can only make a decision only after a subordinate court has made one. Now , the High court did not make a ruling as to the date of elections or on matters of Interpretation of the constitution as to when the elections should be held.

From 1 & 2, I seem to agree with the SC that the matter should first be addressed to the fullest by the High court. Should there be an appeal thereafter, then the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court comes into play.

Agreed.

1 - the supreme court has original jurisdiction (the power to hear a case at its first instance) in only two situations:

i - a presidential election petition, and

ii - where the national govt, county govt, or any state organ (eg IIEC/IEBC) has raised a matter that requires an interpretation that involves county govt.

In this case, a state organ (the IIEC which is now the IEBC) sought an advisory opinion on the date of the next election. ANd the IIEC went straight to the Supreme Court, jumping all other courts, and seeking an opinion from the Supreme Court.

This was neither a presidential election petition nor a matter concerning county governments.

The Supreme Court is therefore right to decline to hear the case as on the face of it, it had no jurisdiction over the matter.

I however see that the Supreme Court asserted that it had jurisdiction. So why the contradiction?

The contradiction arised because of the way the IIEC had framed its petition to the court. IIEC had sought to know when the election date is.

As we know, we shall be conducting elections for both national govt and county govts on the same day.

On account of the fact that the election date affects county governments, then the Supreme Court has jurisdiction.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court has no jurisdction to hear a case on the election date of the national govt.

So, the Supreme Court could in theory give an opinion as to when the election date for county govts should be and leave the lower courts to decide the date for national elections.

But since the two dates are tied together, making a decision as to the date of election of county govts would simultaneously give an opinion of when national elections should be.

And since the Supreme Court is superior to all other courts, the other courts (High Court & Court of Appeal) would automatically be bound by the date given by the Supreme Court.

There effectively was only one way out:

Return the case back to the High Court which would give an interpretation of the constitution as to when both the elections for national govt and county govts should be.

Should the partied be dissatisfied, then they can appeal to the Court of Appeal and finally to the Suprem Court.

In short, this is a very well thought out decision.

As to the fact that the Supreme Court did not issue a written opinion, this is not out of the ordinary.

In the interest of justice, and the urgency of the matter, it was best they make a decision as soon as possible and write the opinion later.

The opinion may take time to write, given that the justices need to agree on who is to write the opinion, circulate the opinion, have the othe judges review it and issue it. This takes time given the process.

Not to mention that if there's a dissenting opinion, then the dissenters need to also write their minority opinion and have it delivered at the same time as the majority opinion.

Add to the mix that this is the very first decision of the court when they are still finetuning processes etc.

Needless to add, the other courts cannot issue a judgement without a written opinion because the parties need the written judgment so as to appeal. But since is the very last court, no appeal is possible - hence they are safe to do so.

By so doing, the Supreme Court will have time to write its judgment while the election date case goes on at the High Court - thus speeding up matters.

Either way, i see this case going all the way upto the Supreme Court.

The only saving grace is if bunge acts fast enough to introduce some clarity into the matter by making the amendments already on the table of the House - thereby rendering moot all of these cases already in court.

Great judgment by the SC

[tactician]

Nov 15, 2011 17:11:56 GMT 3 mzee said:

nereah,
I find the ruling a little funny. WHy on earth could they not decided the date of elections? I thought that they are the top organ when it comes to matter of constitutional interpretation. Why chcken out when kenyans were looking up to them. What a bad start for the bunch.

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to interpret the katiba ONLY when the case has been appealed from the Court of Appeal.

And the Court of Appeal has powers to interpret the katiba ONLY when the case has been appealed from the High Court.

Only the High Court has powers to hear a case involving the interpretation of the katiba at first instance.

In this case, the parties went straight to the Supreme Court.

That's why the Supreme Court has sent them to the High Court to begin the process.

[kamalet]

Could not help noticing the gowns...reminds me of the gowns worn by councillors of Nyandarua County Council!

As for the law....listen to Mwau. He knows how to read!

[tactician]

Nov 15, 2011 17:42:06 GMT 3 kamalet said:

Could not help noticing the gowns...reminds me of the gowns worn by councillors of Nyandarua County Council!

As for the law....listen to Mwau. He knows how to read!

Mwau was right about the need to have the lower courts interpreting the katiba. But the IIEC was seeking an advisory opinion.

The SC had jurisdiction on the advisory opinion as the election date affects county govts - but as i have explained above, such a decision would effectively bind the lower courts as to the interpretation of the katiba - power which the SC does not have.

It's been sorted out now - so let's see what the High Court says

[Mr Defence]

Who designed that GREEN uniform? They would rather stick to the 'colonial' regalia :-)

[b6k]

Tactician you're right. The real shocker as already noted by Kamale & Mr Defence are those ghastly robes! Some poor soul somewhere must be missing their seat covers....

[jakaswanga]

Nov 15, 2011 15:40:04 GMT 3 nok said:

From a lay man's view point.

Bad precedence !

With this ambiguous Ruling or should I say Misruling the court

shows weakness and with that the risk of losing perceptual Trust.

nok,
I was of the same opinion, but following tactician's clarifications I have seen the light. So what remains is to join the chorus of mockery at the uniforms of the esteemed bench!
Even those akina-mama things clergymen like Desmond Tutu wear woul look better!
Please Njoki Ndung'u, I have always been robust and plentiful with my compliments to you! Today... today I will be meaner than an 80 year old virgin! Find another more imaginative designer and tailor! Yawa!

[man]

Nov 15, 2011 21:51:00 GMT 3 Mr Defence said:

Who designed that GREEN uniform? They would rather stick to the 'colonial' regalia :-)

The colonial regalia looks 10 times better.

[Daktari wa makazi]

Nereah

Gosh, how did I miss this interesting development?

I disagree with Tactician on some of what he said. The view he takes is primarily of jurisdiction, which I think is contradictory. That the Supreme Court cannot hear the request for an opinion because the matter was duly before the High Court is not correct view. There is an established mechanism, but before I delved into it, let me lay the grounds of the dispute.

Article 101 – sets the election date as August.
101. (1) A general election of members of Parliament shall be held on the second Tuesday in August in every fifth year.

The dispute centers around the 2012 election. In my view, there are compelling reasons why an August election date is impractical. An election on August 14, Parliament would have to be dissolved at least 90 days before, on or before June 13. June is around when Budgets is read and passed. Parliament, therefore, have no time to discuss and pass the budget proposals, meaning there wouldn’t be any money to conduct the elections anyway. The government wants to have the 2012 vote in Dec. – that prompted the electoral commission to petition the High Court, which then authorized an advisory opinion to be sought from the Supreme Court on the provision of the Constitution before it, the High Court, made a binding ruling on the date. This is a specific decision for the 2012 election.

The Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and heard the request but declined to give an opinion preferring the matter be heard by the High Court. The argument that Supreme court only gives opinion on matters concerning county government did not apply as the Supreme Court heard the request. If the matter was not within their jurisdiction, they would not have heard it, as they did.

Why the Supreme Court declined to give its reason is not made public, as far as I can see. One can only speculate,

1. maybe the Supreme Court thinks amendments of the Constitution are not areas where it should tip its toes into at this juncture,

2. or, that the Supreme Court thought the request did not carry enough pressing issues for it to get involved, noting Parliament had yet not had an opportunity to deal with it.

We can only know when their decision is made available, upon application by a party, as they stated.

Now, to why Tactician is not correct to say the matter must first be exhausted in the High Court, then Court of Appeal, and ultimately to the Supreme Court.

There is a well established route of appeal called ‘leapfrog appeals’ where a subordinate court, here the High Court can certify a legal point in a matter before it requires an opinion of the Highest Court.

In the UK, the High Court can therefore refer matters for ‘advisement’ to the Supreme Court, and has done so.

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199697/ldinfo/ld08judg/bluebook/bluebk08.htm

Any court of record in the UK can also refer to the european court of justice in matter concerning the European union seeking their interpretation. There is no requirement nor necessity that the matter go through the chain of court command before that is done.

[mwalimumkuu]

The truth of the matter on this thing is, the katiba needs to be amended, that is the long and short of this circus. The SC knows that, parliament knows that, but everyone is developing cold feet so as to sound politically correct. I trust Mutula to take the bull by the horns and clean up the mess.

[roughrider]

I disagree with the claim that the August date is impractical and therefore we should change the constitution. There are many things in the Katiba that are difficult. We knew they would be difficult. And precisely because they would be difficult we wanted them codified so that we would be forced to find ways of doing them. We are supposed to make it work without changing the constitution. We have lot's of time to prepare.

What I heard the court say is that they have declined to exercise their advisory role on the matter. I think that they were trying to set precedent so as to avoid people taking cases to the supreme court willy nilly without the benefit of arguments and judgements in lower courts.

If you want your matter sorted out by the highest court in the land, thenm you better start with your local chief and work your way upwards. That is the filter that will allow only genuinely important things to seize the highest court. The elections date cannot be genuinely important because opinion leaders have said so: it will be a critical issue because weighty issues have been argued through the court system and appeals have reached the the SCORK!

Supreme Courts are not places to take Mama Mboga disputes that have not matured, and especially should not be the arena for sorting out political or practical difficulties.

Isaack Hassan is saying that it is possible to hold elections in August, but it will be easier in December 2012. We did not hire him for the easy job. We hired him for the right job. Let us not change the constitution or trouble the Supreme Court because we want easy things.

NB: I am no lawyer but this is my common sense view.

[tactician]

Nov 16, 2011 9:47:42 GMT 3 Daktari wa makazi said:

Nereah

Gosh, how did I miss this interesting development?

I disagree with Tactician on some of what he said. The view he takes is primarily of jurisdiction, which I think is contradictory. That the Supreme Court cannot hear the request for an opinion because the matter was duly before the High Court is not correct view. There is an established mechanism, but before I delved into it, let me lay the grounds of the dispute.

Article 101 – sets the election date as August.
101. (1) A general election of members of Parliament shall be held on the second Tuesday in August in every fifth year.

The dispute centers around the 2012 election. In my view, there are compelling reasons why an August election date is impractical. An election on August 14, Parliament would have to be dissolved at least 90 days before, on or before June 13. June is around when Budgets is read and passed. Parliament, therefore, have no time to discuss and pass the budget proposals, meaning there wouldn’t be any money to conduct the elections anyway. The government wants to have the 2012 vote in Dec. – that prompted the electoral commission to petition the High Court, which then authorized an advisory opinion to be sought from the Supreme Court on the provision of the Constitution before it, the High Court, made a binding ruling on the date. This is a specific decision for the 2012 election.

The Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and heard the request but declined to give an opinion preferring the matter be heard by the High Court. The argument that Supreme court only gives opinion on matters concerning county government did not apply as the Supreme Court heard the request. If the matter was not within their jurisdiction, they would not have heard it, as they did.

Why the Supreme Court declined to give its reason is not made public, as far as I can see. One can only speculate,

1. maybe the Supreme Court thinks amendments of the Constitution are not areas where it should tip its toes into at this juncture,

2. or, that the Supreme Court thought the request did not carry enough pressing issues for it to get involved, noting Parliament had yet not had an opportunity to deal with it.

We can only know when their decision is made available, upon application by a party, as they stated.

Now, to why Tactician is not correct to say the matter must first be exhausted in the High Court, then Court of Appeal, and ultimately to the Supreme Court.

There is a well established route of appeal called ‘leapfrog appeals’ where a subordinate court, here the High Court can certify a legal point in a matter before it requires an opinion of the Highest Court.

In the UK, the High Court can therefore refer matters for ‘advisement’ to the Supreme Court, and has done so.

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199697/ldinfo/ld08judg/bluebook/bluebk08.htm

Any court of record in the UK can also refer to the european court of justice in matter concerning the European union seeking their interpretation. There is no requirement nor necessity that the matter go through the chain of court command before that is done.

Sadik,

I think you did not get me right.

I said the SC had jurisdiction because the case before it affected country govts in that the election date determined when county govts would be set up.

But then had the SC exercised its jurisdiction and given an advisory opinion on when the election for county govts would be, it would simultaneously interpret the katiba as to when national elections would be - since national elections are held on the same day as county govt elections.

And as we know, such an opinion of the SC would be binding on the lower courts.

So far, this is all good.

The problem arises in that by binding the lower courts on when the national elections should be, the SC would be effectively interpreting the katiba on a case which has been heard at the first instance at the SC.

And the katiba is expressly clear - that the SC has no power to hear a case involving the interpretation of the katiba unless it is appealed from the High Court.

Therefore, even while having jurisdiction on issuing an advisory opinion as to when the date for county govt elections should b, the SC had to avoid taking on the case to avoid the resulting violation of the katiba had it actually decided on the case.

PS - the precedent you quoted on UK law is not binding on Kenyan soil.

Our katiba is expressly clear - the interpretation of the katiba lies with the High Court. It cannot abdicate this role and ask the Court of Appeal or SC to decide for it.

It is upto the High Court to make a ruling as it sees fit. The Court of Appeal can only entertain hearing a case on interpretation IF and WHEN any of the parties decide to appeal.

[tactician]

Nov 16, 2011 10:07:07 GMT 3 @roughrider said:

I disagree with the claim that the August date is impractical and therefore we should change the constitution. There are many things in the Katiba that are difficult. We knew they would be difficult. And precisely because they would be difficult we wanted them codified so that we would be forced to find ways of doing them. We are supposed to make it work without changing the constitution. We have lot's of time to prepare.

What I heard the court say is that they have declined to exercise their advisory role on the matter. I think that they were trying to set precedent so as to avoid people taking cases to the supreme court willy nilly without the benefit of arguments and judgements in lower courts.

If you want your matter sorted out by the highest court in the land, thenm you better start with your local chief and work your way upwards. That is the filter that will allow only genuinely important things to seize the highest court. The elections date cannot be genuinely important because opinion leaders have said so: it will be a critical issue because weighty issues have been argued through the court system and appeals have reached the the SCORK!

Supreme Courts are not places to take Mama Mboga disputes that have not matured, and especially should not be the arena for sorting out political or practical difficulties.

Isaack Hassan is saying that it is possible to hold elections in August, but it will be easier in December 2012. We did not hire him for the easy job. We hired him for the right job. Let us not change the constitution or trouble the Supreme Court because we want easy things.

NB: I am no lawyer but this is my common sense view.

if you count how much time IEBC has, then it becomes clear that the August date is indeed impractical.

IEBC team was sworn in in mid November.

By law, IEBC has four months to delineate & gazette the boundaries of constituencies ie until mid march.

the katiba allows for people to ask for a review of these boundaries (counstituencies & wards) at the High Court within one month of gazettement - meaning we have until mid april for anyone to challenge these boundaries.

The katiba then requires such review to be decided by the court within 3 months from when the case is filed. So counting from mid april, we jump to mid july when such cases have to be heard & determined.

and of course the IEBC must take into account the decisions of the court in amending the boundaries - if the court so directs. Not to forget that we could have a myriad of cases since different people in diffferent places may file suits regarding different borders.

So by mid july, we still dont have a voters register - since boundaries are not in place, then voters cannot be registered as belonging to particular constituencies/wards.

So then, how do we conduct an election in August if by July we do not have a voters register?

In my opinion, it is not only impractical to hold elections in August but also logisticallly impossible.

We let deadlines pass and we are where we are...and there's now way out - since u cannot force people not to to court asking for reviews of the gazzetted boundaries.

In other words, start preparing for a december election.

[Daktari wa makazi]

Tactician

You have changed your tune, which is all good. Originally, you stated that the matter should have been exhausted through High Court, Court of Appeal then will be for the Supreme Court to tackle it. That was a jurisdictional point.

Now, you are agreeing with me that that is not the case. The reason being the Supreme Court has accepted jurisdiction and made deliberation which was to return the matter before the High Court. If the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction, it would never ever sit hearing the request. It is simple as that.

Secondly, the High Court was not abdicating its role in interpreting the Constitution - it sought advice on how to best to interpret that section of the constitution which was before it and which it was to adjudicate upon between the parties. That is why it sought advisory opinion - not a ruling.

There are several tools in interpreting legal instruments like a Constitution - one amongst them is literal interpretation - what the section literally means. Sometimes several interpretation come into play, and in those instances an advisory opinion from a highest court is the only way out.

The leapfrog appeal is a procedural practice applied across the common law world - which I am afraid includes Kenya. We cannot develop our legal practices and procedures in isolation, in a vacuum. Leapfrog appeals system is not a precedent, as you allege.

RR

You are dwelling in issues which are neither here nor there.

Your pathetic constant attack on people is getting miserable. What has Isaack Hassan to do with the issues about the difficulty in holding election in Aug. What do you expect him to do - conjecture up miracles? He is no Deya.

Is this one of your weird attack on muslims you seem to specialised in, lately?

I have told you precisely what is the problem with holding elections in Aug. Instead of shooting from the hip, why don't you come up with a way to hold the election in Aug without the problems I highlight. i.e solution - not baseless nonsense.

[roughrider]

Nov 16, 2011 12:14:27 GMT 3 tactician said:

if you count how much time IEBC has, then it becomes clear that the August date is indeed impractical.
--------
In my opinion, it is not only impractical to hold elections in August but also logisticallly impossible.
----------
In other words, start preparing for a december election.

tactician;

Let Mr. Isaack speak for himself. After all, it is he, not you who will be running the show:

IEBC chairman Ahmed Isaack Hassan assured Kenyans that the new electoral body was prepared to conduct the polls at whatever date the courts decide.

"The electoral commission will always be ready, we are ready to conduct elections in August or December,” Mr Isaack said Tuesday during a function where the former Interim Independent Electoral Commission (IIEC) handed over its final report to the new commission.

www.nation.co.ke/News/politics/Hassan+says+IEBC+ready+for+polls/-/1064/1273568/-/aj1ifd/-/index.html

[roughrider]

Nov 16, 2011 12:25:45 GMT 3 Daktari wa makazi said:

RR

You are dwelling in issues which are neither here nor there.

Your pathetic constant attack on people is getting miserable. What has Isaack Hassan to do with the issues about the difficulty in holding election in Aug. What do you expect him to do - conjecture up miracles? He is no Deya.

Is this one of your weird attack on muslims you seem to specialised in, lately?

I have told you precisely what is the problem with holding elections in Aug. Instead of shooting from the hip, why don't you come up with a way to hold the election in Aug without the problems I highlight. i.e solution - not baseless nonsense.

Sadik - You are being idiotic. I first noticed that you had a special interest in lecturing me on that thread where i disagreed with Oloo and others on the Somalia war and Oloo misused his powers to ban Shifta. Did you think that escaped notice?

The matter here is simple. I have not attacked Isaack. I have merely said he must not seek to do the easy job. And I was borrowing his very words.

The chair of the electoral commission says it is possible to conduct elections next August. It will not be easy but it can be done. Financial arrangements can be made to make this happen. There are many ways which have been suggested in public debate. It is that simple.

So quit acting like a fool. Where have I attacked Muslims? Don't just speak because you have a BIG mouth. Unlike you I do not pretend to be a Muslim here on Jukwaa when we all know you are not.

And when it comes to attacks, have you ever apologised for calling Jukwaa a luo forum and luos as 'aids infested'? Did you not in huff quit Jukwaa on that occasion?

Please stop this silly campaign to paint me as something I am not. Else you will light a fire that you cannot stop.

[Daktari wa makazi]

Sadik - You are being idiotic. I first noticed that you had a special interest in lecturing me on that thread where i disagreed with Oloo and others on the Somalia war and Oloo misused his powers to ban Shifta. Did you think that escaped notice?

The matter here is simple. I have not attacked Isaack. I have merely said he must not seek to do the easy job. And I was borrowing his very words.

The chair of the electoral commission says it is possible to conduct elections next August. It will not be easy but it can be done. Financial arrangements can be made to make this happen. There are many ways which have been suggested in public debate. It is that simple.

So quit acting like a fool. Where have I attacked Muslims? Don't just speak because you have a BIG mouth. Unlike you I do not pretend to be a Muslim here on Jukwaa when we all know you are not.

And when it comes to attacks, have you ever apologised for calling Jukwaa a luo forum and luos as 'aids infested'? Did you not in huff quit Jukwaa on that occasion?

Please stop this silly campaign to paint me as something I am not. Else you will light a fire that you cannot stop.

RR

It is clear who is an idiot in this conversation. You can pretend to be ultra right-winger all you want, but we all know you are some pathetic Rachuoyo bullshit who spends his time sucking on Uncle Tom. You will never be American just because a son of someone else is the President of the USA. As someone told your god, style up, maybe you could borrow that sound advice - you sound very cheap in your lately heart-found love for Israel, war against Al-shabaab, and other nonsense against Muslims and Islam.

As I said you are pathetic - Remember your hatred for gays, and condoms and you Bible quotes which took you nowhere - still confused fella from Homa Bay, despite the bursaries and grants extended to you to educate your sorry self.

Bure kabisa.

[roughrider]

Nov 16, 2011 13:04:02 GMT 3 Daktari wa makazi said:

RR

It is clear who is an idiot in this conversation. You can pretend to be ultra right-winger all you want, but we all know you are some pathetic Rachuoyo bullshit who spends his time sucking on Uncle Tom. You will never be American just because a son of someone else is the President of the USA. As someone told your god, style up, maybe you could borrow that sound advice - you sound very cheap in your lately heart-found love for Israel, war against Al-shabaab, and other nonsense against Muslims and Islam.

As I said you are pathetic - Remember your hatred for gays, and condoms and you Bible quotes which took you nowhere - still confused fella from Homa Bay, despite the bursaries and grants extended to you to educate your sorry self.

Bure kabisa.

This is rather funny Sadik. Why are you getting so worked up over this? You will mess up your keyboard. I am willing to debate you on the issues: raise any issue you like and I will engage you purely on brains and logic.

I still ask where and when did I insult Muslims & Islam?

I am NOT an ultra right winger. There is no evidence at all for that. I despise gays, yes. I quote the bible, true. I educate people on chastity and abstinence, correct. That is not ultra right wing. That is just my African conservatism.

I do not come from Rachuonyo (note the spelling). But I respect and admire men and women of Rachuonyo. Do you have a special problem with Rachuonyo that we need to know???

I received and have paid in full my HELB loans for undergraduate studies. Unfortunately I was not a beneficiary of bursaries and grants. I find nothing particularly wrong or negative about getting a bursary or a grant. Do you?

As for the son of someone in the US, I am quite proud of Barrack Obama and the fact that his dad was from Kenya. It should be an inspiration for all young Kenyans. You can do anything.

Sadik - let me reiterate. If you bring any logic here for argument, it will be game. I am also far, far better at insults than you can ever be. But I am holding back because this is the internet and clearly it does not help one bit!