Post by Onyango Oloo on Dec 20, 2011 12:10:35 GMT 3
This is from one of my young comrades in the Social Democratic Party of Kenya, Benedict Wachira:
Comrades and Friends
Attached is the ruling on the case of a dispute on the leadership of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) by the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal, that was made on 19th December 2011, 2:00pm (Today), where the ruling was in favor of the applicants (Benedict Wachira and Booker Ngesa) against Mutahi Kagwe, Mutua Katuku and Njeru Ndwiga(2nd-4th respondents).
The decision by the Registrar of Political Parties to illegally include the three former powerful Kibaki Ministers who are currently serving as state officers heading various government bodies was NULLIFIED by the three member bench as had been the request of the applicants.
This is a great victory to Truth, Justice and above all, to Socialism.
Brief Background:
Mid last year, Former Ministers Mutahi Kagwe, Mutua Katuku and Njeru Ndwiga and others approached the party with an intention of taking over its leadership. These intentions were stopped by the party through its Chairman and spokesman Mwandawiro Mghanga. The reasons given were that it was impossible to join the party and immediately become a leader,secondly, they were serving in state positions and most importantly, they did not believe in Socialism, the ideology of the party(they even presented forged entry documents where they replaced the word Socialism with ‘Social Justice’, and the words Revolutionary Ideas with ‘Development Ideas’)
They then sought to use other ways to get into the party, and they eventually managed to do so illegally through the help of the registrar of political parties. They have since purported to be leaders of the party, causing a lot of confusion within the party and especially with some party members who did not understand how they got into the party without them (the members) being consulted.
Through these unnecessary party wrangles, they have also wasted a lot of time for the party, time which would have been spent organizing with the workers, peasants, students and the general Kenyan public.
One year after this immoral invasion, Benedict Wachira and Booker Ngesa, both leaders of the Bureau of Young Social Democrats (Youth League of the Party) sued the three former Ministers and current state officials together with the registrar of political parties by filing the case at the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal.
The case was heard and determined well within the stipulated time period (90 days), and the ruling favored the applicants’ prayers, by nullifying the registration of the three respondents and others into the Party.
The party is now back in track, under the Chairmanship of Cde Mwandawiro Mghanga.
The Bureau of Young Social Democrats then held a Special meeting, where they decided to take the three former Ministers to the police and to the courts for forgery (having presented forged documents) which is a serious criminal offence, and unlike in the first case where the Young Socialists had no legal representation, they will now look for the services of a good lawyer to finish off the case.
Benedict Wachira,
20th December
00:45am
Long Live Socialism!
The actual ruling itself is appended below:
a. The first issue that we must determine is whether the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents are members of the SDP.
Article 3 of the SDP Constitution makes provisions as to membership of the Party. Under Article 3(b) of the said Constitution, an Applicant who qualifies to be a member shall upon enrolment pay the prescribed entry fees. The Second, Third and Fourth Respondents in their Response to the Complaint have exhibited their membership cards in which there is an acknowledgement of payment of the membership fees.
We have no hesitation in finding that the said Respondents are members of the Party. Indeed if they were not members, then we would not have jurisdiction either under Section 6 of the now repealed Political Parties Act 2007 or Section 40 of the Political Parties Act No. 11 of 2011.
b. Were the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents properly appointed as officials of the SDP as National Secretary General, Organizing and Deputy Chairperson respectively.
Article 4 of the SDP Constitution provides of the elected offices of the Party. Among those offices are the offices of the Secretary General, Organizing Secretary and Deputy Chair, which in the records maintained by the First Respondent, are held by the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents respectively.
Under Article 4 (c) f the Party Constitution, the officials set out in the said Article are elected at the Leaders Conference by secret ballot by the Party Delegates. Under the said sub-article, the National Executive Council (sic) may fill vacancies which may arise between the Leaders Conference but any such filling must be approved by the National Working Committee and confirmed at the next Leaders Conference.
The Second, Third and Fourth Respondents submitted that National Executive Committee meetings that led to the ascension of the Second, Third and Fourth Defendant into office are the meetings held on 8th and 15th December 2009 and 27th May 2010.
From the Minutes of the meeting held on 8th December 2009, it was resolved under Minute 3 (2) that the non performing members of the NEC be replaced for the good of the Party.
At the meeting of 15th December 2009, it was agreed and resolved that the Chair and other NEC members were mandated to move with speed and nominate other persons who subscribe to the Party ideals for co-option to NEC and strengthen the Party.
It was then at the meeting of 27th May 2010, that in a meeting attended by seven people with the Minutes recording one apology, that several persons, amongst them the Second, third and Fourth Respondents were co-opted to ascend to various Party positions.
The issue that presents itself to this Tribunal, is whether the said meeting of 27th May 2010, was properly convened and constituted.
Under Article 10 of the SDP Constitution, the quorum for the National Executive Committee shall be one third of the members of the Committee and shall include the Chairperson, the Secretary or Treasurer.
From the Party Constitution, the membership of the National Executive Committee exceeds the eight persons who were recorded as having either attended or sent apologies for not attending the meeting of 27th May 2010. No record is captured as to what the status of the other NEC members was with regard to this meeting. We have not seen any invitation calling for the meeting and any evidence that the said invitation was extended to all the NEC members. We are therefore not satisfied that this meeting was properly convened with requisite notices being dispatched to all those who were entitled to attend. Even if we are mistaken on this score, we are sure that even if all the NEC members were invited to the said meeting, the meeting was not properly constituted as neither the Chair, Secretary or Treasurer attended this meeting as required by Article 10 of the Party’s Constitution.
By reason of the above finding and observation, this Tribunal takes the view that any business transacted in the meeting on 27th May 2010 was done without jurisdiction and the resolutions passed in the said meeting are of no effect.
c. The Third issue which we framed for determination was whether the Complainants are entitled to an order directed to the First Respondent to nullify the National Executive Committee list maintained in her records?
Having found that the meeting of 27th May 2010 was not properly constituted, we are of the view that any resolution passed at the said meeting is of no effect and cannot be a basis upon which the First Respondent can amend the records ante maintained by her.
1. By reason of the foregoing, we direct that:
a. The list filed with the First Respondent by the SDP pursuant to the meeting of 27th May 2010 is of no legal effect and any entries made by the First Respondent pursuant to an Application based on resolutions passed at the meeting of 27th May 2010 be reversed.
b. Each Party bear its own legal costs.
Comrades and Friends
Attached is the ruling on the case of a dispute on the leadership of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) by the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal, that was made on 19th December 2011, 2:00pm (Today), where the ruling was in favor of the applicants (Benedict Wachira and Booker Ngesa) against Mutahi Kagwe, Mutua Katuku and Njeru Ndwiga(2nd-4th respondents).
The decision by the Registrar of Political Parties to illegally include the three former powerful Kibaki Ministers who are currently serving as state officers heading various government bodies was NULLIFIED by the three member bench as had been the request of the applicants.
This is a great victory to Truth, Justice and above all, to Socialism.
Brief Background:
Mid last year, Former Ministers Mutahi Kagwe, Mutua Katuku and Njeru Ndwiga and others approached the party with an intention of taking over its leadership. These intentions were stopped by the party through its Chairman and spokesman Mwandawiro Mghanga. The reasons given were that it was impossible to join the party and immediately become a leader,secondly, they were serving in state positions and most importantly, they did not believe in Socialism, the ideology of the party(they even presented forged entry documents where they replaced the word Socialism with ‘Social Justice’, and the words Revolutionary Ideas with ‘Development Ideas’)
They then sought to use other ways to get into the party, and they eventually managed to do so illegally through the help of the registrar of political parties. They have since purported to be leaders of the party, causing a lot of confusion within the party and especially with some party members who did not understand how they got into the party without them (the members) being consulted.
Through these unnecessary party wrangles, they have also wasted a lot of time for the party, time which would have been spent organizing with the workers, peasants, students and the general Kenyan public.
One year after this immoral invasion, Benedict Wachira and Booker Ngesa, both leaders of the Bureau of Young Social Democrats (Youth League of the Party) sued the three former Ministers and current state officials together with the registrar of political parties by filing the case at the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal.
The case was heard and determined well within the stipulated time period (90 days), and the ruling favored the applicants’ prayers, by nullifying the registration of the three respondents and others into the Party.
The party is now back in track, under the Chairmanship of Cde Mwandawiro Mghanga.
The Bureau of Young Social Democrats then held a Special meeting, where they decided to take the three former Ministers to the police and to the courts for forgery (having presented forged documents) which is a serious criminal offence, and unlike in the first case where the Young Socialists had no legal representation, they will now look for the services of a good lawyer to finish off the case.
Benedict Wachira,
20th December
00:45am
Long Live Socialism!
The actual ruling itself is appended below:
a. The first issue that we must determine is whether the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents are members of the SDP.
Article 3 of the SDP Constitution makes provisions as to membership of the Party. Under Article 3(b) of the said Constitution, an Applicant who qualifies to be a member shall upon enrolment pay the prescribed entry fees. The Second, Third and Fourth Respondents in their Response to the Complaint have exhibited their membership cards in which there is an acknowledgement of payment of the membership fees.
We have no hesitation in finding that the said Respondents are members of the Party. Indeed if they were not members, then we would not have jurisdiction either under Section 6 of the now repealed Political Parties Act 2007 or Section 40 of the Political Parties Act No. 11 of 2011.
b. Were the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents properly appointed as officials of the SDP as National Secretary General, Organizing and Deputy Chairperson respectively.
Article 4 of the SDP Constitution provides of the elected offices of the Party. Among those offices are the offices of the Secretary General, Organizing Secretary and Deputy Chair, which in the records maintained by the First Respondent, are held by the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents respectively.
Under Article 4 (c) f the Party Constitution, the officials set out in the said Article are elected at the Leaders Conference by secret ballot by the Party Delegates. Under the said sub-article, the National Executive Council (sic) may fill vacancies which may arise between the Leaders Conference but any such filling must be approved by the National Working Committee and confirmed at the next Leaders Conference.
The Second, Third and Fourth Respondents submitted that National Executive Committee meetings that led to the ascension of the Second, Third and Fourth Defendant into office are the meetings held on 8th and 15th December 2009 and 27th May 2010.
From the Minutes of the meeting held on 8th December 2009, it was resolved under Minute 3 (2) that the non performing members of the NEC be replaced for the good of the Party.
At the meeting of 15th December 2009, it was agreed and resolved that the Chair and other NEC members were mandated to move with speed and nominate other persons who subscribe to the Party ideals for co-option to NEC and strengthen the Party.
It was then at the meeting of 27th May 2010, that in a meeting attended by seven people with the Minutes recording one apology, that several persons, amongst them the Second, third and Fourth Respondents were co-opted to ascend to various Party positions.
The issue that presents itself to this Tribunal, is whether the said meeting of 27th May 2010, was properly convened and constituted.
Under Article 10 of the SDP Constitution, the quorum for the National Executive Committee shall be one third of the members of the Committee and shall include the Chairperson, the Secretary or Treasurer.
From the Party Constitution, the membership of the National Executive Committee exceeds the eight persons who were recorded as having either attended or sent apologies for not attending the meeting of 27th May 2010. No record is captured as to what the status of the other NEC members was with regard to this meeting. We have not seen any invitation calling for the meeting and any evidence that the said invitation was extended to all the NEC members. We are therefore not satisfied that this meeting was properly convened with requisite notices being dispatched to all those who were entitled to attend. Even if we are mistaken on this score, we are sure that even if all the NEC members were invited to the said meeting, the meeting was not properly constituted as neither the Chair, Secretary or Treasurer attended this meeting as required by Article 10 of the Party’s Constitution.
By reason of the above finding and observation, this Tribunal takes the view that any business transacted in the meeting on 27th May 2010 was done without jurisdiction and the resolutions passed in the said meeting are of no effect.
c. The Third issue which we framed for determination was whether the Complainants are entitled to an order directed to the First Respondent to nullify the National Executive Committee list maintained in her records?
Having found that the meeting of 27th May 2010 was not properly constituted, we are of the view that any resolution passed at the said meeting is of no effect and cannot be a basis upon which the First Respondent can amend the records ante maintained by her.
1. By reason of the foregoing, we direct that:
a. The list filed with the First Respondent by the SDP pursuant to the meeting of 27th May 2010 is of no legal effect and any entries made by the First Respondent pursuant to an Application based on resolutions passed at the meeting of 27th May 2010 be reversed.
b. Each Party bear its own legal costs.
