Matemu nominated to head anti-graft body Sept 25, 2012 14:13:21 GMT 3
Post by kamalet on Sept 25, 2012 14:13:21 GMT 3
Well, here is a three judge bench declaring that they are out to 'protect and uphold' the constitution. If I was one of these two gentlemen facing even more serious integrity issues than Mr. Matemu, I would be very afraid.
The ruling is indeed ' interesting', but I am afraid the standard article does not recognise its due significance. I you, or someone else could find the total excerpt of the ruling, please post it in whole on Jukwaa.
THE MATEMU ARREST.
Let me first explain my near layman' s use of the term arrest in law. An arrest, jurisprudentially, is a landmark ruling on a precarious or sensitive matter. Sensitive as in complicated and involving gigantic oppositional interests, commercial or otherwise...  political. The ramifications are thus far and wide, game-changers.
The arrest as a ruling of a court, serves as a benchmark, and sets a precedent upon which later, similar cases may be held against. An arrest therefore, to serve her pretence, must be groundedly reasoned, thought out in law and coherent within the legal philosophy of the political order in the background. Otherwise it does not stand the test of time, can never be a precedent, and would be annulled in the next appeal.
Now Judges Joel Ngugi, Joel Odunga, and Ngugi Mumbi, have set the bar with their reasoning in this case. --But the case is going to the court of appeal, and so could be overturned, given the mental corruption prevalent in our land.
The three judges explain, that the provisions of chapter 6, the intergrity clauses on those seeking to occupy public offices, are not just:
1. mere suggestions 2. superfluous points 3. merely ornamental 4. far from being mere lofty statements of aspiration or intent, they are core and fundamental.
B: THe judges write: ' Kenyans were singularly desirous of cleaning up OUR politics and governance structures, by insisting on high standards of personal integrity among those seeking to guide us.'
THIS IN MY OPINION IS AN ARREST. A BENCHMARK interpretation of Chapter six. ICs
That reasoning, has to be undone by the appeal court in order to re-instate Matemu. And that reasoning must send a shiver up the spine of some candidates who are ensnared in the suit brought to court by the activists Neto and Mwararia and Abubakr and Momanyi of Kenya Youth Parliament.
The judges noted Matemu was implicated in shady deals as a legal officer at the AFC. --aside question is, how did he pass the vetting standards? and how come the two principals picked him inspite of this clear statement of: MATEMU WAS A CORRUPT LAWYER AT AFC!
nb: Lawyer Muite Paul [presidential candidate??] and LSK chair Eric Mutua, and Grace Maingi of FIDA, issued statements commemorating this ruling by the court as impressive and standard-setting. Essentially a benchmark.
NB: a court rules thursday whether the suit originally brought against Uhuruto by the activists Neto and co will include the expansion! The suit was challenging UK$Ruto' s eligibility to run for PORK, but was later denounced by the original activists when it was extended to include Raila and Kalonzo. The Judges will be Isaac Lenaola ; Mohamed Warsame [he of the Miguna typology], and Filomena Mwilu. It is a ruling to watch in ITS REASONING. Thus to shed light upon it in the background of the MATEMU ARREST.
I have previously said I find the ruling curious and on reflection even dangerous! The three judicial neophytes on the bench failed to recognise the separation of powers in nullifying the appointment of Matemu.
We can discard Matemu and discuss the merits of the ruling on the infringing of the doctrine of separation which I think is the core of the dispute here.