|
Post by OtishOtish on Sept 17, 2012 2:28:27 GMT 3
A judge gets fired for sitting on hundreds of cases for years, carrying them along "like a hump on a camel's back". He gets fired for it. He wakes up, gets to work, and does in 3 months what he was "unable" to do in 8 years. (Quality of work is a discussion for another day.) Forgive and forget and let the man continue eating his share of our great country? Stick to the idea that long-term past performance is a good guide to future performance and that justice delayed is justice denied? If he could perform so quickly after getting fired, why not earlier, in 8+ years? Do we have enough confidence to give him "security of tenure" for the next who knows how many years? www.nation.co.ke/News/LSK+CJ+Mutunga+meddling+with+vetting+of+judges/-/1056/1508706/-/cia2ifz/-/index.html
|
|
|
Post by malkia on Sept 17, 2012 11:02:03 GMT 3
The fact that an appeal is pending means that it would be imprudent if not unfair for the CJ to deny the Vetting Board information on changed circumstances regarding Justice Ibrahim for the Board to consider in reviewing their decision.
I think perhaps we have been so used to skewed and corrupt processes that we are uncomfortable with impartiality and fairness. The CJ has an obligation to put before the Vetting Board all information positive and negative, his role is not to make a determination, that is for the Board and I hope the Board will see through Justice Ibrahim and confirm the original finding.
|
|
|
Post by Omwenga on Sept 17, 2012 14:58:25 GMT 3
The fact that an appeal is pending means that it would be imprudent if not unfair for the CJ to deny the Vetting Board information on changed circumstances regarding Justice Ibrahim for the Board to consider in reviewing their decision. I think perhaps we have been so used to skewed and corrupt processes that we are uncomfortable with impartiality and fairness. The CJ has an obligation to put before the Vetting Board all information positive and negative, his role is not to make a determination, that is for the Board and I hope the Board will see through Justice Ibrahim and confirm the original finding. It's inappropriate and wrong for the CJ to have intervened in this manner. Period. Suppose the Board reverses itself and says Judge Ibrahim is now fit to serve and someone challenges that decision which winds up at the Supreme Court; would the CJ not be forced to recuse himself and if he continues down on this path; will he not find himself in a situation where he must be forced to recuse himself in virtually every case that comes before him for simply commenting on things he shouldn't? These are troubling deeds to say the least on the part of the CJ and even though thus far isolated and not necessarily connected in substance, they have a common thread linking them and the cumulative effect may be an outcome no one would wish on the CJ and his legacy at the helm of this brand new court he otherwise has an opportunity to shape and leave a lasting and positive legacy for it.
|
|
|
Post by abdulmote on Sept 17, 2012 15:11:05 GMT 3
The fact that an appeal is pending means that it would be imprudent if not unfair for the CJ to deny the Vetting Board information on changed circumstances regarding Justice Ibrahim for the Board to consider in reviewing their decision. I think perhaps we have been so used to skewed and corrupt processes that we are uncomfortable with impartiality and fairness. The CJ has an obligation to put before the Vetting Board all information positive and negative, his role is not to make a determination, that is for the Board and I hope the Board will see through Justice Ibrahim and confirm the original finding. I am impressed with the 'Queen's" views. Well reasoned in all that was stated therein!
|
|
|
Post by reporter911 on Sept 17, 2012 15:15:39 GMT 3
The fact that an appeal is pending means that it would be imprudent if not unfair for the CJ to deny the Vetting Board information on changed circumstances regarding Justice Ibrahim for the Board to consider in reviewing their decision. I think perhaps we have been so used to skewed and corrupt processes that we are uncomfortable with impartiality and fairness. The CJ has an obligation to put before the Vetting Board all information positive and negative, his role is not to make a determination, that is for the Board and I hope the Board will see through Justice Ibrahim and confirm the original finding. It's inappropriate and wrong for the CJ to have intervened in this manner. Period. Suppose the Board reverses itself and says Judge Ibrahim is now fit to serve and someone challenges that decision which winds up at the Supreme Court; would the CJ not be forced to recuse himself and if he continues down on this path; will he not find himself in a situation where he must be forced to recuse himself in virtually every case that comes before him for simply commenting on things he shouldn't? These are troubling deeds to say the least on the part of the CJ and even though thus far isolated and not necessarily connected in substance, they have a common thread linking them and the cumulative effect may be an outcome no one would wish on the CJ and his legacy at the helm of this brand new court he otherwise has an opportunity to shape and leave a lasting and positive legacy for it. Well said.. They start Humble with humility then in a short span of time power gets into their heads.. has CJ W.Mutunga turned a wrong Corners as his predecessor? He must stop meddling. if he messes he will be out.. he's appointment is not for Life!! ama!
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Sept 17, 2012 17:52:59 GMT 3
The fact that an appeal is pending means that it would be imprudent if not unfair for the CJ to deny the Vetting Board information on changed circumstances regarding Justice Ibrahim for the Board to consider in reviewing their decision. I think perhaps we have been so used to skewed and corrupt processes that we are uncomfortable with impartiality and fairness. The CJ has an obligation to put before the Vetting Board all information positive and negative, his role is not to make a determination, that is for the Board and I hope the Board will see through Justice Ibrahim and confirm the original finding. 1) The guy was fired for failure to perform over 8 years. 2) The "changed circumstances" do not change the fact that he did not perform in 8 years. So I doubt that the board will change its mind. If they do, they might as well allow some judges to re-open cases and rewrite their decisions. People should perform when on the job, not after they have been fired and are appealing their firing. As for getting information to the board, there is no need to get the CJ involved, and the issue is not one of getting it to the Board; the guy himself can provide that information as part of his appeal submission. Even the court Registrar can provide such information; in fact, I doubt that when deliberating the Board gets its case-status information from the CJ.
|
|
|
Post by job on Sept 17, 2012 23:25:58 GMT 3
Besides acknowledging Justice Mohammed's individual rights during appeal, it's also important to understand the multiple roles of a Chief Justice (CJ). In this specific matter, the CJ is merely doing his administrative duty as the head of the Judiciary. He has no other choice in this situation since the latter reports to him (as CJ). Whenever cases are decided (old and new), the CJ is obligated to record and report progress. It is Dr. Mutunga's duty to supervise the fast disposal of all cases by all Judges.
Nowhere did the CJ put a gun on the heads of Vetting Board members; demanding reconsideration of Justice Mohammed's case. The latter simply exercised his right to appeal; and burnt the midnight oil hoping for reprieve. To me, he is frankly a (genuine) reformist Judge who probably needed such jolt to improve on his efficiency. Some of these fellows got demoralized within a forest of crooked Judges; but never joined the corruption gravy train. The fact is, Ibrahim has belatedly made some amends; thanks to the opportunity for an appeal process. What will the Vetting Board now say? The more reasonable approach would be - to hand the Judge a warning and a second chance!
LSK should come cautiously...for this unreformed, non-vetted LSK to come up with guns blazing towards Mutunga is nothing but political sensationalism which we are now used to. The CJ was simply reporting a routine matter towards his administrative reform goal - speedy disposal of cases! Didn't he promise this when he took over? Siasa aside, I think Justice Mohammed (thanks to his shocking jolt) was of great help towards that goal. I also assume the CJ put in place effective quality control mechanisms to ensure speed doesn't compromise judicial quality.
Looking at the big picture, we can at least report something positive that the vetting process has also yielded...more cases cleared off the dusty shelves. Thus we are working towards eliminating delay of justice. Collectively, the board, the CJ and Justice Ibrahim are all contributing towards ending denial of justice through delay. Hope it ends well for Ibrahim.
|
|
|
Post by nereah on Sept 19, 2012 19:01:36 GMT 3
may i go on record here stating my strong reservation on wily mutunga. i am entitled to my view and unless i am convinced otherwise, i have done away with the confidence that i had when he was assigned this momentous task.
food for thought: a cabinet minister facing serious charges is set free after reportedly apologizing to kenyans while some kenyans among them the meru jah brothers and the known blogger are tormented with mutunga's judicial sledge hammer.
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Sept 22, 2012 18:09:25 GMT 3
Somebody help me out here.
There is an ongoing thread on the vetting of judges. There is additional information to add there. 1. Mutunga has denied the charge of interference [Ibrahim] 2. Some two judges have had their disqualifications by the vetting board annuled on appeal. 3. the once mighty Khaminwa , the madam, bites the dust together with two others. --The reasoning was sometimes tragic!
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Sept 27, 2012 14:06:32 GMT 3
all from the standard. standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000067032&story_title=%27I-am-clean%27,-CJ-Mutunga-says standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000066908&story_title=Get-Mutunga%E2%80%99s-finger-off-self-destruct-buttonLSK maintains Justice Ibrahim unfit to serve Related News 'I am clean', CJ Mutunga says Sacked judges want verdict reviewed Court suspends vetting of judges for 14 days Is there fairer vetting for new judges? SHARE THIS STORY: Updated Saturday, September 22 2012 at 00:00 GMT+3 By David OchamiThe Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has questioned the competence and impartiality of the Vetting of Judges and Magistrates Board for allowing a fresh vetting of Justice Mohamed Ibrahim whom it had found incompetent on July 20. “We are not going to allow the Judiciary or vetting board to interfere with the vetting,” said LSK chairman Eric Mutua. He said weighty issues of law have been raised by the manner in which the board handled Justice Ibrahim’s case and the fact that he was allowed to preside over courts after his credibility had been brought into doubt. “He had no authority to make judgements,” said the LSK chairman. He said the Vetting of Judges and Magistrates Act says one is deemed to have left the Judiciary after being declared to be incompetent. LSK said it will apply to sit in any proceedings vetting the judge afresh to prove he is incompetent and warned the lawyers will not sit in any court or proceedings with Justice Ibrahim. Mutua said LSK would seek a fast fresh vetting of the judge to prove he should not preside over court at all. He said a wrong impression has been made that the judge has cleared his backlog. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Sept 28, 2012 2:55:39 GMT 3
Jakaswanga:
I have read what Mutunga has written, and it appears that the waters are murkier than we thought; I had forgotten that this is Kenya. It would best to our postpone judgment until the judges of the Board have judged and given their reasoning behind their judgment.
The other article, by the politician, appears to be a stringing together of the results of random neural activity. Some parts read quite well, but others seemed to have been knocked off while waiting for the bus. And the spectacularly bad writing doesn't help ... perhaps even detracts from just what it is he thinks he has to say. Skip, Fast Forward, >>>>
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Oct 1, 2012 13:27:48 GMT 3
otishotish,Perhaps the new CJ is more than a funny man! ;D Peruse the case as made by the LSK Chair. Jakaswanga: I have read what Mutunga has written, and it appears that the waters are murkier than we thought; I had forgotten that this is Kenya. It would best to our postpone judgment until the judges of the Board have judged and given their reasoning behind their judgment. The other article, by the politician, appears to be a stringing together of the results of random neural activity. Some parts read quite well, but others seemed to have been knocked off while waiting for the bus. And the spectacularly bad writing doesn't help ... perhaps even detracts from just what it is he thinks he has to say. Skip, Fast Forward, >>>> One of the above links has been upgraded to include a longer position article by LSK's Eric Mutua. www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Why+CJ+stands+accused+over+vetting+of+judges/-/440808/1521174/-/k6n3d/-/index.html----------------------------------------------------- excerpts: On July 20, 2012 the board made a determination that Justice Ibrahim was not suitable to continue serving as a judge. This finding disappointed some high-ranking people in the Judiciary as well as some lawyers. Some of them went to work with the sole mission of saving the judge even if it meant bringing down the vetting board and the entire vetting process.There seems to be a deliberate attempt to protect this particular judge from being vetted. The Law Society of Kenya had repeatedly taken issue with his many pending judgments and rulings (as many as 490, some undelivered for eight years). At the time of vetting in July, the judge had 264 pending judgments and rulings. Efforts were made to help him complete his judgments, but he failed to comply with the various deadlines that had been set after his elevation to the Supreme Court. Instead he was appointed to head the Judiciary team charged with ensuring quick disposal of the anticipated electoral disputes after the General Election!------------------------------ 2. The Vetting Act stipulates that once the board makes a determination of unsuitability, a judge is deemed to be removed from office unless the decision is reversed on review. Despite the judge’s removal, the CJ in questionable circumstances allowed him to continue writing judgments and rulings.The Chief Justice then wrote to him as follows: “ Thank you very much for completing all pending rulings and judgments within the given period.” =============== 3. While the above matters were before the Vetting Board, the Chief Justice appointed a Bench of three judges headed by Justice Warsame to hear an urgent suit relating to the vetting of Justice Ibrahim. Curiously, Justice Warsame was scheduled to be vetted on October 11, 2012. The Chief Justice departed from his earlier precedent where he had excluded judges subject to vetting from dealing with vetting cases before the courts. On September 24, when the matter came before the Bench, LSK and the Vetting Board raised the issue of conflict of interest and partiality of Justice Warsame. The two parties further raised the issue of jurisdiction of the court.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 1, 2012 16:17:06 GMT 3
Curiously, Justice Warsame was scheduled to be vetted on October 11, 2012. [/color] The Chief Justice departed from his earlier precedent where he had excluded judges subject to vetting from dealing with vetting cases before the courts.[/quote] Warsame is an even funnier guy. He has now ordered the Vetting Board to stop its work. I don't know why the other judges didn't think of that before they were thrown out. ;D www.nation.co.ke/News/judges+vetting+board+reject+court+order+to+stop+work/-/1056/1522224/-/5q5xh8/-/index.htmlRE (2) above: The situation seems unclear as to whether a judge who has been ordered to go home may still work pending the outcome of a final appeal. Logic would suggest YES, in which case there would be no issue with Ibrahim continuing to work.
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Oct 1, 2012 17:42:27 GMT 3
Curiously, Justice Warsame was scheduled to be vetted on October 11, 2012. [/color] The Chief Justice departed from his earlier precedent where he had excluded judges subject to vetting from dealing with vetting cases before the courts.[/quote] Warsame is an even funnier guy. He has now ordered the Vetting Board to stop its work. I don't know why the other judges didn't think of that before they were thrown out. ;D www.nation.co.ke/News/judges+vetting+board+reject+court+order+to+stop+work/-/1056/1522224/-/5q5xh8/-/index.htmlRE (2) above: The situation seems unclear as to whether a judge who has been ordered to go home may still work pending the outcome of a final appeal. Logic would suggest YES, in which case there would be no issue with Ibrahim continuing to work.[/quote] The truth is, Mutunga screwed up this thing big time. I understand how far him and Ibrahim have come, but should he have allowed their personal relationship to get into their work? The more things change, the more they remain the same.
|
|
|
Post by mzee on Oct 1, 2012 17:55:31 GMT 3
Let's face it. The bad guys will eventually throw the CJ out. I suspect that they are compassing as we speak.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 1, 2012 18:22:58 GMT 3
Jakaswanga:
Looking again at the Vetting Act, yes, it does indeed appear that Ibrahim should not have been at work once the decision to throw him out was made. Given that he should not have been working, the decision to re-vet him on the basis of "new information" is shaky. It's like sentencing a thief to jail, allowing him to roam around free and even return what he stole, and then permitting an appeal on the grounds that new information (that the court did not previously have) has come to light!
Want a quick disposal of cases? Find the slowest guy and put him in charge. I like that one. ;D
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Oct 1, 2012 19:50:41 GMT 3
Let's face it. The bad guys will eventualy through the CJ out. I suspect that they are compassing as we speak. Mzee,Not quite, when a man of the stature of the CJ engages in such monkey-like games, you do not expect the nation to look the other way and sing hosanna hosanna for him. If you go back the thread on vetting of judges, you will realize that at some point the CJ developed cold feet and became very worry of this vetting board. He, in fact, was of the view that the board's responsibilities be transferred to the JSC to which he is the chair. It took the objections and efforts of people like Ahmed Abdullahi Hassan, himself a member of the JSC, the LSK and others to maintain the status quo. Looking back, one begins to have the sense of why the CJ had wanted to preside over the vetting. He had sensed that his friends may not survive the board as has been demonstrated by this case.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 1, 2012 21:32:16 GMT 3
Let's face it. The bad guys will eventualy through the CJ out. I suspect that they are compassing as we speak. And his plan is to help them? A judge who is yet to be vetted gets to decide in a case involving the board that will soon be vetting him. Hmmm. And guess what he decides! Smart guy.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Oct 1, 2012 22:41:09 GMT 3
The injunction was very wrong and Warsame should not have presided on the matter stopping the vetting board from doing its work.
Having said this, the decision by the Rao board to declare a court ruling null and void is equally wrong. The board cannot purport to ignore a court order however unpopular or wrong it is perceived to be. If the board is aggrieved by the ruling, it has the right to appeal to the court of appeal or even the Supreme Court but cannot decide to ignore the ruling.
This statement obey the Rao team and the ignoring of court orders by teachers and doctors and the government sets very dangerous precedents. If allowed, then there will be judicial anarchy in this country where court orders are routinely ignored.
Disagree with a ruling but for heavens sake do not ignore the ruling!
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 1, 2012 23:21:35 GMT 3
The injunction was very wrong and Warsame should not have presided on the matter stopping the vetting board from doing its work. Having said this, the decision by the Rao board to declare a court ruling null and void is equally wrong. The board cannot purport to ignore a court order however unpopular or wrong it is perceived to be. If the board is aggrieved by the ruling, it has the right to appeal to the court of appeal or even the Supreme Court but cannot decide to ignore the ruling. This statement obey the Rao team and the ignoring of court orders by teachers and doctors and the government sets very dangerous precedents. If allowed, then there will be judicial anarchy in this country where court orders are routinely ignored. Disagree with a ruling but for heavens sake do not ignore the ruling! Interesting points, Kamalet. What happens if the matter goes to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court, and Warsame orders them to stop immediately? Does, say, the Supreme Court go along, to shows respect for the law, pending new decisions from .... ? Keep in mind that this board also vets judges in those two courts and that after a possible review (by the board by the board itself) of a case, the board's decision cannot be challenged in any court, including these two. As far as vetting goes, that arrangement would appear to put the Vetting Board above the those two courts, and to that extent, the board seems quite right to plough on unhindered. What else should the board do when the relevant laws pretty much state that no court can interfere with its work? Mutunga has gone some good things in the judiciary, and he still has a great deal of goodwill among Kenyans. But he's now making huge blunders, and he needs to step back from the daddy-knows-best mode. Otherwise we'll have a huge legal crisis at a time when we could most do without one.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Oct 2, 2012 0:18:52 GMT 3
The injunction was very wrong and Warsame should not have presided on the matter stopping the vetting board from doing its work. Having said this, the decision by the Rao board to declare a court ruling null and void is equally wrong. The board cannot purport to ignore a court order however unpopular or wrong it is perceived to be. If the board is aggrieved by the ruling, it has the right to appeal to the court of appeal or even the Supreme Court but cannot decide to ignore the ruling. This statement obey the Rao team and the ignoring of court orders by teachers and doctors and the government sets very dangerous precedents. If allowed, then there will be judicial anarchy in this country where court orders are routinely ignored. Disagree with a ruling but for heavens sake do not ignore the ruling! Interesting points, Kamalet. What happens if the matter goes to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court, and Warsame orders them to stop immediately? Does, say, the Supreme Court go along, to shows respect for the law, pending new decisions from .... ? Keep in mind that this board also vets judges in those two courts and that after a possible review (by the board by the board itself) of a case, the board's decision cannot be challenged in any court, including these two. As far as vetting goes, that arrangement would appear to put the Vetting Board above the those two courts, and to that extent, the board seems quite right to plough on unhindered. What else should the board do when the relevant laws pretty much state that no court can interfere with its work? Mutunga has gone some good things in the judiciary, and he still has a great deal of goodwill among Kenyans. But he's now making huge blunders, and he needs to step back from the daddy-knows-best mode. Otherwise we'll have a huge legal crisis at a time when we could most do without one. Just a correction. If it goes to a higher court it is to determine if Warsame was wrong. The rulings of the higher court will supersede those of a lower court.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 2, 2012 0:23:56 GMT 3
Just a correction. If it goes to a higher court it is to determine if Warsame was wrong. The rulings of the higher court will supersede those of a lower court. Which court--- any court, be it high or low---has jurisdiction on Vetting-Board matters, and on what basis? My point in the first paragraph is more that a joke about Warsame. I am trying to point out that at some point in the higher and higher, there is finally a court that can simply say bugger-off to all lower rulings, and that's that. When it comes to the decisions of the Vetting Board, since no court can interfere with its decisions, the board is the point at which the bugger-off takes place. Of course, the board isn't a court, but it has (as far as I can tell) been wisely put outside and beyond the courts.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Oct 2, 2012 0:43:07 GMT 3
Just a correction. If it goes to a higher court it is to determine if Warsame was wrong. The rulings of the higher court will supersede those of a lower court. Which court--- any court, be it high or low---has jurisdiction on Vetting-Board matters, and on what basis? My point in the first paragraph is more that a joke about Warsame. I am trying to point out that at some point in the higher and higher, there is finally a court that can simply say bugger-off to all lower rulings, and that's that. When it comes to the decisions of the Vetting Board, since no court can interfere with its decisions, the board is the point at which the bugger-off takes place. Of course, the board isn't a court, but it has (as far as I can tell) been wisely put outside and beyond the courts. Ndugu I beg to differ. The courts have the jurisdiction to interpret the law and if the Warsame court rules wrongly the board has the right to go to appeal. If indeed they are right to tell the Warsame court to bugger off, why did they send their lawyer to argue their case for them? As far as I am aware, the law is on the board's side and they can win the appeal. Disobeying a bad court order is what I am arguing about and saying it sets very bad precedents.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Oct 2, 2012 0:54:34 GMT 3
The courts have the jurisdiction to interpret the law. True. But not every court has the jurisdiction to hear every matter that can possibly come before it, and sometimes the first order of business for a court is to make a determination on exactly that. They sent the lawyer to point out that the court had no business in the matter, which seems quite sensible and reasonable. Indeed, from what I understand, the court was asked to first deal with the jurisdictional issue before getting to the merits of the case. Doing that would have led to an awkward result (from Warsame's viewpoint), so it looks like they just skipped it. Had the court acted sensibly on what was suggested, we would not be here right now; I guess the board wished to avoid the possibility of the current situation. If the matter goes to a higher court, one hopes that the jurisdictional issue will be dealt with first--and once for all time. Otherwise we might be back right here.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Oct 2, 2012 1:08:02 GMT 3
The courts have the jurisdiction to interpret the law. True. But not every court has the jurisdiction to hear every matter that can possibly come before it, and sometimes the first order of business for a court is to make a determination on exactly that. They sent the lawyer to point out that the court had no business in the matter, which seems quite sensible and reasonable. Indeed, from what I understand, the court was asked to first deal with the jurisdictional issue before getting to the merits of the case. Doing that would have led to an awkward result (from Warsame's viewpoint), so it looks like they just skipped it. Had the court acted sensibly on what was suggested, we would not be here right now; I guess the board wished to avoid the possibility of the current situation. If the matter goes to a higher court, one hopes that the jurisdictional issue will be dealt with first--and once for all time. Otherwise we might be back right here. I share your desire for the appeal court to throw out that Warsame ruling. But that decision should and must come from the court .....which the point I have been making!
|
|