|
Post by Omwenga on Jun 29, 2012 13:14:14 GMT 3
The CJ Willy Mutunga will be guest of honor at Miguna's book launch on July 14, 2012 and that's just a few days away. I'm also eager to hear his justification for accepting this invitation because if nothing else it was sure going to be very controversial. If he doesn't speak on this till then, we'll surely find out when he gives his speech at the book launch. So, just hold on omwenga. Let's hear what the man has to say. You worried that his attendance particularly as guest of honor gives credibility to MM and his book on Raila; and or brings disrepute to the judiciary and his office? I don't think that Willy is the sort person that anyone can manipulate. I'll wait to hear what he has to say. Kathure,I hear what you are saying but am afraid holding the justification until he speaks at the event may be too late for the damage may have already been done of the kind he cannot easily undo. I think this is the opportunity for the Chief Justice to do so and if he offers something that's so profound as to overcome our objections and concerns, so much the better. Based on what I know and simply being analytically objective about this--and yes, believe it or not I am--there is just no good reason the Chief Justice can come up with to overcome the glaring contradictions that are there for all to see why this is a bad idea in light of who is and is expected to be as our Chief Justice.
|
|
|
Post by mzee on Jun 29, 2012 13:14:31 GMT 3
Omwenga, I think that people will start questioning the CJ judgment (never mind that he has known Miguna for dog years). And once people start doing that, then we can safely conclude that it will be the beginning of the end of the career of the man we fought so hard to put in the position he occupies.
The CJ is obviously demeaning his office by participating in the launch of a book that aims to destroy the career of another Kenyan. After presiding over the anti-Raila book then one might also safely say that he can’t ever preside over a case in which Raila is involved because he will be seen to be biased. And any lawyer can successfully argue this is a court of law.
By publicly participating in the official launch of a book whose intention is to malign a member of the executive (another branch of government), he has simply gone too far. We all understand that this will be a private function but it does matter. The president is always the president and this goes for the PM and CJ. There are no two ways about it. So yes, he is putting himself in a compromising situation. Do you think that the CJ of say UK would participate in the launch of an anti- Cameron book? Only in Kenya.
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Jun 29, 2012 13:30:40 GMT 3
omwenga,I think you have made your points very clearly and I am sure the CJ has seen them or they have been brought to his attention. So let him make his call and let Kenyans judge him accordingly. I have said in the other thread regarding Miguna's book that I don't care one way or the other. The CJ is going there in his private capacity. But then again, Nancy Baraza pinched somebody's nose in her private capacity and the repercussions were furious. So we will wait and see. I wonder if the CJ would have attended the event if Jerome Corsi the original publisher of the book was sitting across the table from him. That would be funny. It is just a book launch and in all honesty we don't know what is in the book. If it is a political lynching or hit job as advertised the CJ will leave there with egg all over of his face but it is his face and hopefully not the judiciary that will be egged up. For me two things are important. One the CJ has every right to associate with Miguna just like everybody else. The other issue is the CJ associating himself with Miguna's work. That too he has a right to do depending on what the work is. For me the CJ has already made a major goof by associating himself with this highly unconstitutional move which is beginning to embarrass everybody including the AG who is now running away from it. Here is what I am talking about. www.nation.co.ke/News/politics/AG+taken+to+task+over+changes+to+vetting+law+/-/1064/1438664/-/c7dolez/-/index.htmlThis matter could very well end up in the Supreme Court and the CJ allowed himself to be involved in the conspiracy to mess up the judicial vetting process. What will he do then. It all shows that Dr. Mutunga is only human. He can make huge blunders like he did here. This is a disaster in the making for him worse than the Miguna book. Sadly for him Kibaki did not reject that particular part of the infamous bill. It is already before the courts. It is coming to his doorstep and he is one of the authors of the infamy by his own admission.
|
|
|
Post by Omwenga on Jun 29, 2012 13:31:11 GMT 3
Omwenga,Why this concerted effort to intimidate the CJ over this matter? What are we fearing? Willy Mutunga is an adult of sound mind. His being CJ does not mean he cannot associate and engage in other private activities. Mutunga is not only a friend of Miguna but a scholar too. His being chief guest at Muguna's book launch can only therefore be seen through these two lenses. Whatever the book contains, is a different matter that is neither here nor there and non of his business a this point. Mwalimumkuu,I suppose you have seen my response to Stibin and that answered your question, ama? The only thing I would add by way of emphasis is to say what I have elsewhere and that is, Those taking this view argue that the Chief Justice has the right to freely associate and so does Miguna, which is true but they are all missing the point. The constitution which guarantees us all freedom to associate also prescribes State Officers from so freely associating, otherwise, we might as well accept the argument it would be proper for our Chief Officers to freely associate with prostitutes or engage in drunken stupors with their pals and so on. The fact is, there are certain things our public officers, especially at the level of Chief Justice must not engage in as they otherwise would if they were not state officers. BTW, I know this may be hard for you to believe but it's true I am not looking at this from a partisan angle or because I support Raila; I would say exactly the same thing if the Chief Justice were to attend a book launch for a book touted as the mother of all punches to knock any of Raila's opponent out of the presidential run or even if the book was one highlighting Raila's illustrious career as a reformer, family man, businessman and politician. Please don't say it doesn't matter what the book Miguna is selling contains; in fact, I give you the benefit of doubt and assume you misstated for I don't believe that is what you meant or did you?
|
|
|
Post by Omwenga on Jun 29, 2012 13:46:40 GMT 3
omwenga, I think you have made your points very clearly and I am sure the CJ has seen them or they have been brought to his attention. So let him make his call and let Kenyans judge him accordingly. I had said in the other thread regarding Miguna's book that I don't care one way or the other. Th eCJ is going there in his private capacity. Nancy Baraza pinched somebody's nose in her private capacity and the repercussions were furious. So we will wait and see. I wonder if the CJ would have attended the event if Jerome Corsi the original publisher of the book was in sitting across the table from him. That would be funny. For me the CJ has already made a major goof by associating himself with this highly unconstitutional move which is beginning to embarrass everybody including the AG who is now running away from it. Here is what I am talking about. www.nation.co.ke/News/politics/AG+taken+to+task+over+changes+to+vetting+law+/-/1064/1438664/-/c7dolez/-/index.htmlThis matter could very well end up in the Supreme court and the CJ allowed himself to be involved in the conspiracy to mess up the judicial vetting process. It all shows that Dr. Mutunga is only human. He can make huge blunders like he did here. This is a disaster in the making for him. Adongo,I hear you. I take note of what you have said about us all being human and therefore subject to err. Right now it can be said the Chief Justice has made a mistake in accepting the invitation as guest of honor for Miguna that can be understood from the perspective he is human but it would be a monumental one if he goes forward with honoring the invitation despite all these objections worse than Mudavadi's jumping off a boat to sea without a vest and is is given a life-saving rope by Raila only to jump right back into sea without a vest and this time the sharks have thrown him the rope to feed on him at their pleasure. While Mudavadi's self-inflicted wounds flowing out of his monumental mistakes are really just that, namely, self-inflicted wounds only he and a few of his bad advisors will be leaking, Dr. Mutunga's will not be for the rest of the judiciary and by extension the whole country will have to feel the pain, even though he would be alone in leaking the wounds.
|
|
|
Post by Omwenga on Jun 29, 2012 13:58:41 GMT 3
Omwenga,I think that people will start questioning the CJ judgment (never mind that he known Miguna for dog years). And once people start doing that then we can safely conclude that will be the beginning of the end of the career of the man we fought so hard to put in the position he occupies. The CJ is obviously demeaning his office by participating in the launch of a book that aims to destroy the careers of another Kenyan. After presiding over the anti-Raila book then one might also safely say that he can’t ever preside over a case in which Raila is involved because he will be seen to be biased. And any lawyer can successfully argue this is a court of law. By publicly participating in the official launch of a book whose intention is to malign a member of the executive (another branch of government), he has simply gone too far. We all understand that this will be a private function but it does matter. The president is always the president and this goes for the PM and CJ. There are no two ways about it. So yes, he is putting himself in a compromising situation. Do you think that the CJ of say UK would participate in the launch of an anti- Cameron book? Only in Kenya. Mzee,You are so right and have aptly summed up what's at stake here; let's hope the Chief Justice is listening and heeds the counsel.
|
|
|
Post by mzee on Jun 29, 2012 14:44:47 GMT 3
Omwenga, You are very right. Its one thing to take one wrong step. But taking a second wrong step after you have been warned of its dangers amounts to stupidity, never mind that you have a mind of your own. But as has been said before, pride comes before a fall. Ama this guy thinks that because he has tenure of office nothing can touch him. I guess that he has another thing coming.
|
|
|
Post by stibin on Jun 29, 2012 14:49:32 GMT 3
If the Ethics and Integrity law does not consider CJ’s presence at the launch as a bleach of ethics and/or conflict of interests, I do not see anything wrong if he attends. Furthermore some of us are judging Miguna’s book before reading it. Stibin,The relevant part of Chapter Six states as follows with respect to State Officers of which the Chief Justice is one: 75. (1) A State officer shall behave, whether in public and official life, in private life, or in association with other persons, in a manner that avoids— (a) any conflict between personal interests and public or official duties; (b) compromising any public or official interest in favour of a personal interest; or (c) demeaning the office the officer holds. Can a case be made that the CJ's obligation to his personal friend to attend this function is in conflict with his role as Chief Justice? Can a case be made that by attending the book launch of a personal friend and author of a book that has been touted as the mother of all punches to knock Raila out of the presidential run puts the Chief Justice in a compromised position? Can a case be made that Dr. Willy Mutunga's attending the book launch demeans the office of Chief Justice? These are questions that must be asked and answered objectively, not with emotions and how one answers them cannot be and must not be seen from their partisan perspective for some times we all must rise above politics and see things from the perspective of what is good for our country as a whole. A simple test to determine this is simply asking oneself is this something that brings us together as a nation or one that divides for surely there must be something we all as Kenyans must agree to see the same way otherwise we are doomed. Politicians must ask themselves the same question ditto for State Officers but the Chief Justice, the President/PM more so than everyone else and were the Chief Justice to ask himself is what he contemplates to do something that brings us together as a nation or one that divides us, he would obviously have to agree it's the latter and not the former which means he shouldn't engage in such conduct for the sake of the office he holds. Conversely, if the Chief Justice thumbs his nose on everyone asking him not to attend this event and goes ahead with it, then he has to know this will not be without consequence even if that is merely the creation of doubt in people's minds that his judgment is wanting and that cannot be anything worth the risk. Another way to look at this is even more simpler: If you don't want to be part of a controversy, stay away from it. Miguna is obviously a controversial figure and for the Chief Justice to dive in and join him in the controversy says more about the Chief Justice than it does about Miguna who has done nothing wrong to invite him to be the guest of honor in his book launch; all of us would do the same thing, but not all of us would readily accept the invitation for some of us are of the view doing so is inappropriate and contrary to Chapter Six of our constitution. Omwenga, I am convinced he should not attend. In addition to chapter six issues above i note section 20 of the Public Officer Ethics Act cap 183 which says “ A public officer shall conduct his private affairs in a way that maintains public confidence in the integrity of his office” can accuse the CJ if he dares attend the said event. The probem as you earlier explained is that the book is about a serving PM who is also contesting presidency. not to forget he has political opponents out there waiting to make a killing from the book.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jun 29, 2012 15:19:10 GMT 3
The relevant part of Chapter Six states as follows with respect to State Officers of which the Chief Justice is one: 75. (1) A State officer shall behave, whether in public and official life, in private life, or in association with other persons, in a manner that avoids— (a) any conflict between personal interests and public or official duties; (b) compromising any public or official interest in favour of a personal interest; or (c) demeaning the office the officer holds. See RED. All that seems clear enough. Any questions?
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Jun 29, 2012 15:45:07 GMT 3
The relevant part of Chapter Six states as follows with respect to State Officers of which the Chief Justice is one: 75. (1) A State officer shall behave, whether in public and official life, in private life, or in association with other persons, in a manner that avoids— (a) any conflict between personal interests and public or official duties; (b) compromising any public or official interest in favour of a personal interest; or (c) demeaning the office the officer holds. See RED. All that seems clear enough. Any questions? Guys, This is increasingly becoming hilarious and desperate. Everything must be done including finding irrelevant laws to stop Mutunga from this function hu?
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jun 29, 2012 16:05:02 GMT 3
mwalimumkuu: This is a serious matter, for discussion by grown-ups only. Please stay out of it.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 29, 2012 16:11:47 GMT 3
mwalimumkuu: This is a serious matter, for discussion by grown-ups only. Please stay out of it. Well said. Juveniles kindly step aside. Sometimes, its good to see beyond ODM/PNU faultline politics, and actually come to terms with the best interests of the country.
|
|
|
Post by wilsonle on Jun 29, 2012 16:44:56 GMT 3
The relevant part of Chapter Six states as follows with respect to State Officers of which the Chief Justice is one: 75. (1) A State officer shall behave, whether in public and official life, in private life, or in association with other persons, in a manner that avoids— (a) any conflict between personal interests and public or official duties; (b) compromising any public or official interest in favour of a personal interest; or (c) demeaning the office the officer holds. See RED. All that seems clear enough. Any questions? Mwalimu mkuu,completely right here teacher... i always dont understand why Mutunga shouldnt excersice his freedom of association just because some "juveniles somewhere thinks MM is now a prophet of Doom.
|
|
|
Post by Horth on Jun 29, 2012 16:48:04 GMT 3
Omwenga,
I’m not siding with the CJ here neither am I against him. I’m simply pointing out the incredible myopic hypocrisy being poured here on this thread under the guise of a “discussion for grown-ups only”. Yeesh!
Now, based on your illogical reasoning backed by your usual cheerleaders, kindly let us know the exact difference between a CJ lowering his standing and stirring controversies by being associated with a “renegade”..sorry, MM’s book launch vs. a presidential candidate not lowering his standing and definitely not stirring controversies from his supporters by being associated with known thieves, masters of economic sabotage, and, just for change, flirting with the ex-leader of a brutal gang responsible for horrendous killings, maiming, and rape which would make Pol Pot raise an eyebrow in respect. As a certain pointy eared Vulcan would have put it, “That’s illogical, Omwenga,”. You may be aware that logic involves the progression of an argument through legitimate steps. “Legitimate”; that’s the key word. It is very easy, as the naysayers are now showing, to get these steps wrong and produce a very, dare I say it, juvenile position.
I support Job when he, oh, so eloquently poses, ”Does perception matter when it comes to public conduct of the Chief Justice?”, a question which SHOULD and MUST be asked of all our PORK frontrunners, without any exceptions, particularly if they’re from our own tribe! And as Mzee puts it, “it’s like they’re ganging up with these thieves against the good citizens of Kenya”, the ones who’ve been stolen from, killed, displaced, maimed, and raped! Couldn’t have put it better myself (Kudos, I bow in your general direction, Mzee….seriously). Shouldn't we then, in the best interests of our country, also judge our PORK candidates, MP’s, Governors, Senators, etc with the same zeal to demand the candidate does not "demean the office the officer holds"? If not, pray tell us why not?
Take your time while keeping firmly in mind that steadfast inconsistency could be a pointer to what the lowest common denominator in our choice for PORK is.
|
|
|
Post by wilsonle on Jun 29, 2012 16:56:52 GMT 3
See RED. All that seems clear enough. Any questions? Guys, This is increasingly becoming hilarious and desperate. Everything must be done including finding irrelevant laws to stop Mutunga from this function hu? Mwalimu mkuu,you're right mawalimu. i also dont understand why Mutunga should not exploit his freedom of expression just because some people somewhere thinks MM is now a prophet of doom
|
|
|
Post by topnotch on Jun 29, 2012 16:58:39 GMT 3
Omwenga,I’m not siding with the CJ here neither am I against him. I’m simply pointing out the incredible myopic hypocrisy being poured here on this thread under the guise of a “discussion for grown-ups only”. Yeesh! Now, based on your illogical reasoning backed by your usual cheerleaders, kindly let us know the exact difference between a CJ lowering his standing and stirring controversies by being associated with a “renegade”..sorry, MM’s book launch vs. a presidential candidate not lowering his standing and definitely not stirring controversies from his supporters by being associated with known thieves, masters of economic sabotage, and, just for change, flirting with the ex-leader of a brutal gang responsible for horrendous killings, maiming, and rape which would make Pol Pot raise an eyebrow in respect. As a certain pointy eared Vulcan would have put it, “That’s illogical, Omwenga,”. You may be aware that logic involves the progression of an argument through legitimate steps. “Legitimate”; that’s the key word. It is very easy, as the naysayers are now showing, to get these steps wrong and produce a very, dare I say it, juvenile position. I support Job when he, oh, so eloquently poses, ”Does perception matter when it comes to public conduct of the Chief Justice?”, a question which SHOULD and MUST be asked of all our PORK frontrunners, without any exceptions, particularly if they’re from our own tribe! And as Mzee puts it, “it’s like they’re ganging up with these thieves against the good citizens of Kenya”, the ones who’ve been stolen from, killed, displaced, maimed, and raped! Couldn’t have put it better myself (Kudos, I bow in your general direction, Mzee….seriously). Shouldn't we then, in the best interests of our country, also judge our PORK candidates, MP’s, Governors, Senators, etc with the same zeal to demand the candidate does not "demean the office the officer holds"? If not, pray tell us why not? Take your time while keeping firmly in mind that steadfast inconsistency could be a pointer to what the lowest common denominator in our choice for PORK is. HorthSo Mutunga is neither right nor wrong in your good mind?
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jun 29, 2012 17:00:02 GMT 3
you're right mawalimu. i also dont understand why Mutunga should not exploit his freedom of exploitation just because some people somewhere thinks MM is now a prophet of doom
Didn't freedom of exploitation just get you into trouble with p. m. to other Jukwaaists? In future, you can avoid that by trying to understand the meaning (and spelling) of phrases you hear all over the place.
|
|
|
Post by wilsonle on Jun 29, 2012 17:09:58 GMT 3
you're right mawalimu. i also dont understand why Mutunga should not exploit his freedom of exploitation just because some people somewhere thinks MM is now a prophet of doom
Didn't freedom of expression just get you into trouble with p. m. to other Jukwaaists? In future, you can avoid that by trying to understand the meaning (and spelling) of phrases you hear all over the place. expression
|
|
|
Post by Omwenga on Jun 29, 2012 18:35:27 GMT 3
Omwenga,I’m not siding with the CJ here neither am I against him. I’m simply pointing out the incredible myopic hypocrisy being poured here on this thread under the guise of a “discussion for grown-ups only”. Yeesh! Now, based on your illogical reasoning backed by your usual cheerleaders, kindly let us know the exact difference between a CJ lowering his standing and stirring controversies by being associated with a “renegade”..sorry, MM’s book launch vs. a presidential candidate not lowering his standing and definitely not stirring controversies from his supporters by being associated with known thieves, masters of economic sabotage, and, just for change, flirting with the ex-leader of a brutal gang responsible for horrendous killings, maiming, and rape which would make Pol Pot raise an eyebrow in respect. As a certain pointy eared Vulcan would have put it, “That’s illogical, Omwenga,”. You may be aware that logic involves the progression of an argument through legitimate steps. “Legitimate”; that’s the key word. It is very easy, as the naysayers are now showing, to get these steps wrong and produce a very, dare I say it, juvenile position. I support Job when he, oh, so eloquently poses, ”Does perception matter when it comes to public conduct of the Chief Justice?”, a question which SHOULD and MUST be asked of all our PORK frontrunners, without any exceptions, particularly if they’re from our own tribe! And as Mzee puts it, “it’s like they’re ganging up with these thieves against the good citizens of Kenya”, the ones who’ve been stolen from, killed, displaced, maimed, and raped! Couldn’t have put it better myself (Kudos, I bow in your general direction, Mzee….seriously). Shouldn't we then, in the best interests of our country, also judge our PORK candidates, MP’s, Governors, Senators, etc with the same zeal to demand the candidate does not "demean the office the officer holds"? If not, pray tell us why not? Take your time while keeping firmly in mind that steadfast inconsistency could be a pointer to what the lowest common denominator in our choice for PORK is. Horth,I am not sure if you or anyone else has noticed that you have committed several fallacies in putting forth what you and others must believe is unassailable and poignant except it's fallacious. I am certain from your writing that you know all too well about straw man arguments, red herrings and comparing apples to oranges; in one swoop, you have managed to commit all three in one argument and brilliantly so, I must add. Here is why. The Chief Justice has been appointed to a position he is to serve for 10 years maximum or until he turns 70 and will otherwise cease to hold that office only if he dies, resigns or is removed under the very stringent conditions not likely to be met in other than where removal is clearly warranted therefore ensuring tenure of service. The Chief Justice's association with Miguna even being his guest of honor is not in by itself an act for which instituting removal proceedings is warranted, let alone having him removed on that ground. However, even with an assurance of tenure, having a Chief Justice who engages in what may reasonably be deemed to be inappropriate and wrong but short of a removal offense nonetheless would render the Chief Justice ineffective to the extent he is dismissed even by a few as having fallen short of the high expectations for him and the office he holds. The casualty in the latter case becomes judicial reforms that no doubt will be equally impaired and therefore by extension all of us as a country. You are questioning the logic of us demanding that the Chief Justice not attend Miguna's book launch as his guest of honor because, in your view, we are not making the same demand of Raila who you charge is " associated with known thieves, masters of economic sabotage, and, just for change, flirting with the ex-leader of a brutal gang responsible for horrendous killings, maiming, and rape which would make Pol Pot raise an eyebrow in respect." Assuming for the sake of argument that it's true as you charge about Raila's associations, can you see the fallacy in your argument when you say it's illogical to demand that the Chief Justice not attend the book launch when not holding Raila to the same standard? Let me assume that you do but point out for the others who may not see the fallacy that, in the case of the Chief Justice, if it was true that he is associated with " known thieves, masters of economic sabotage, and, just for change, flirting with the ex-leader of a brutal gang responsible for horrendous killings, maiming, and rape which would make Pol Pot raise an eyebrow in respect, then it would be up-to the Judicial Service Commission or anyone for that matter to file a petition to determine whether the Chief Justice should be removed from office under Article 168 of the constitution. On the other hand, if it's true that the Raila--or any candidate for that matter is associated with " known thieves, masters of economic sabotage, and, just for change, flirting with the ex-leader of a brutal gang responsible for horrendous killings, maiming, and rape which would make Pol Pot raise an eyebrow in respect," it will be up-to the voters to decide whether he is fit to serve as our president. In other words, we are not here talking about the same thing as you seem to wrongly believe; on the one hand, we are talking about holding one to the high standard demanded of him and his office short of asking for his resignation or removal, after it has been determined and established that he meets the constitutional criteria to hold the office.On the other hand, you are talking about someone who is seeking the presidency where it must be must be established that he meets the constitutional criteria to be elected and sworn as president. Put another way, if one has a concern with who the Chief Justice associates with or the manner in which he does and how that adversely reflects on him, the Supreme Court and the judiciary as a whole, the best time to express it is before it happens, not after. If one has issues with Raila relative to his associations and overall conduct, the best time to express them is before the elections and let the voters decide upon hearing his version of whatever that is and ditto for any candidate. In sum, the two, namely, us asking that the Chief Justice not attend the book launch and your claims about Raila are clearly not the same and I hope you have seen that by this analysis, if you hadn't already. That being the case, all arguments you presented are dismissed as red herrings, straw man and comparing apples to oranges.
|
|
|
Post by Luol Deng on Jun 29, 2012 18:50:04 GMT 3
See RED. All that seems clear enough. Any questions? Guys, This is increasingly becoming hilarious and desperate. Everything must be done including finding irrelevant laws to stop Mutunga from this function hu? mwalimumkuu, The "irrelevant" law quoted in this instance is the constitution of of the republic of Kenya. Do you know what a constitution is?
|
|
|
Post by Luol Deng on Jun 29, 2012 19:14:39 GMT 3
There is a reason why the bar has been set highly for the state officers. For the judiciary, of which Mutunga is the head, justice needs not only to be served. Justice must also be seen to be served. Otherwise if you deliver justice but fail in the perceptions, you will always be treated with suspicion. This is not only true in Kenya, but it also applies around the world. When the top court of Egypt nullified the parliamentary elections and declared Mubarak's ex-Prime Minister, Ahmad Shafiq, free to run for the top office, the judges' impartiality was questioned considering that they were all appointed by Mubarak.
Just yesterday we had the case of "Obamacare" where the dissenting opinion could very easily have been taken from the GOP campaign manifesto. We all know that Miguna's book is not a textbook or anything of the sort. Now, if one of the people mentioned in the book decides to sue for defamation/libel, what position will that leave the CJ? That is the easier part. Miguna has stated that he will work to ensure that Raila doesn't become the next president, and this book is definitely part of that effort. We all know that presidential elections in Kenya are an emotive affair that invariably ends in litigation. When that happens, where will that leave the CJ?
It is all fair to say that the CJ is free to associate with whoever he pleases, but such moves are very easy to politicise. In the sort of volatile environment that we experience during the campaign and polling period it is best not to have a CJ who will be dragged into the political mud because it will invariably drag the judiciary into the same mud.
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Jun 29, 2012 20:41:51 GMT 3
omwenga on this issue i think you nailed it with this The relevant part of Chapter Six states as follows with respect to State Officers of which the Chief Justice is one: 75. (1) A State officer shall behave, whether in public and official life, in private life, or in association with other persons, in a manner that avoids— (a) any conflict between personal interests and public or official duties; (b) compromising any public or official interest in favour of a personal interest; or (c) demeaning the office the officer holds. as a reminder www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000059303&story_title=Mutunga-warns-leaders-against-integrity-issues== The CJ promised to ensure that the courts uphold Chapter Six of the Constitution to weed out individuals who do not meet integrity and leadership standards. His strong statement renewed the hopes of millions of Kenyans who have feared the worst, as Parliament and the Executive remain divided over Chapter Six of the Constitution that touches on leadership and integrity of public officials. The CJ was emphatic that the courts must be seen to uphold the spirit of the Constitution when it comes to interpreting Chapter Six, which he warned could still be used to vet those seeking leadership positions. Mutunga said the Constitution must be upheld and followed to the letter by the courts to ensure that people seeking to lead are held accountable, and those who fail integrity and leadership thresholds are not appointed or elected to public offices == my only hope here is that either the promotions for this book have been misleading and its actually a pro govt report or else we got ourselves another chap whose star is about to fizzle. does anyone remember a guy call PLO Lumumba?
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Jun 29, 2012 21:34:53 GMT 3
another chap whose star is about to fizzle. does anyone remember a guy call PLO Lumumba? On the the record so far, considering how much needs to be done, and with only 5 years left, I am inclined to believe that that Mutunga will ultimately turn out to be a huge disappointment. I just read this ... well, I think I did: John Roberts will be the guest-of-honour/chief-guest/main-speaker at the launch of a new book by Jerome Corsi--- Obama: The Birth Certificate At Last!
|
|
Mukwhasi
Full Member
Justice will live on ..
Posts: 180
|
Post by Mukwhasi on Jun 30, 2012 0:08:25 GMT 3
So sad the a whole CJ has nothing better to do than to go officiate the launch of a hanky panky bedroom tales kind of tabloid novel.
|
|
|
Post by furaha on Jun 30, 2012 0:55:05 GMT 3
So sad the a whole CJ has nothing better to do than to go officiate the launch of a hanky panky bedroom tales kind of tabloid novel. Mukhwazi, I have stayed out of this discussion for lack of time but have followed the debate. One can agree or disagree with the general trend in the thread. That's what Jukwaa is about. But don't descend into gutter press qualifications of a book you have not read. I find that quite offensive. If you have nothing better to say, go find somewhere else to play. Furaha
|
|