|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Feb 2, 2013 0:52:44 GMT 3
Sadik, I admire your confidence in our 'J'. It is encouraging. And I also do appreciate your point on the court's calender and what have you. But somethings do merit a seat of priority when it comes to Judicial decisions and strongly believe that this is certainly one of them. When a matter of such importance and time is of critical essence, the courts cannot afford the luxury of sticking with its calender. Not when the nations' well-being is at stake as in this case, or on matters of life and and death. Not in Kenya or any where in the world for that matter and I am sure you can think of many. The potential repercussions are pretty obvious for any one to contemplate, especially if the decision could be negative as I had stated earlier. Unless of course such a decision will have no considerable consequences, which I think is not the case here, or a negative decision is not anticipated at all! Having said that, I think it is not fair to assume we bear "inferiority complex" simply for raising a logical and viable criticism on our systems of governance, and by comparing ours to the "whiteman's". Indeed, I believe, as an African nation, we are far behind when it comes to matters of governance. Without doubt, it is by learning to criticise our own shortfalls in comparison to others that we may learn from those who have already been there before us. AbdulI agree that the angle under which the High Court will make it's judgement is very narrow. This is a challenge of judicial review, which as you know, literally means if there are no flaws on how the IEBC reached its decision, the High Court can do anything. Jakaswanga is hoping the Court will literally bar the duo, when that job is actually for the IEBC to do. I also agree that we are far away from the Europe system, but that's simply because we have been deprived of capability. I refer you to Amartya Sen and poverty as a deprivation of capability in relation to justice outreach. This ties in with Foucault’s biopolitics and brings in the notion of human security.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 2, 2013 0:54:26 GMT 3
Uhuruto is good for at least 40% in the opinion polls. It is geographically majorly localised in MK and Nandi Land, and takes at least 50% of the capital city Nairobi. You talk of barring those two men now because of some sh!t thing called integrity in a country just fresh from massive rigging in the primaries, you will be one hell of a laughing stock judge! Quixotic. My bet is on the two guys running. To my mind the only question is how Kenyans will be fooled into believing that a Solomonic decision has been made. Here's one way in which everyone can eat their cake and have it too: At the end of Feb, the judges announce that the pair cannot run. Their lawyers immediately indicate that they will appeal. On that basis, the judges immediately put on a "temporary stay" on their decision. The elections are held the following week while the judges await new submissions from the parties. It will definitely be interesting to see how it's all done, but I think we are in for some more Advanced Thinking.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 2, 2013 0:57:34 GMT 3
I also agree that we are far away from the Europe system, but that's simply because we have been deprived of capability. I refer you to Amartya Sen and poverty as a deprivation of capability in relation to justice outreach. This ties in with Foucault’s biopolitics and brings in the notion of human security. On behalf of some of us who have never heard of this Sen guy and his Foucault friend, may I ask that you simply state what is relevant here (and how).
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Feb 2, 2013 0:58:19 GMT 3
My friend, you are trying very hard to attract my attention to no avail. If you persist and annoy me, I shall retaliate in the best way I know how. Be very warned.
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Feb 2, 2013 1:12:44 GMT 3
JakaswangaI trust in the professionalism of the judges and if need be they will be able to rule against whomsoever they deem unfit for whatsoever reason they see fit. As you know, I don’t usually mind read and cannot tell what the judges are thinking until that time when they publish their judgment. Sometimes they take too long to publish that judgment, that it becomes a circus. Like the doc with the recipe coming when the patient is long dead. Sadik, Earlier on you lectured me about courts and their weighty protocols that take time, and wheels that turn slow and the rest: But when Ibrahim handled in 48 hours cases which had lain dormant for as long as 8 years [to the satisfaction of the CJ, a few days before his vetting]. Reason it now to me in terms of procedures and protocols which take time and must be followed. Looking at it, I said Ibrahim is a goat. You said it was his religion the cause for his bashing. So I give you a second chance to explain Ibrahim to me. [But you could also defend yourself by saying I am lying: there were no cases he slept on for years, only to clear in a few days]! www.citizennews.co.ke/news/2012/local/item/4333-cj-under-fire-over-shielding-mohammed-ibrahimwww.businessdailyafrica.com/Judges-Ibrahim--Nambuye-found-unfit-to-hold-office/-/539546/1458948/-/3at6awz/-/index.html=========== Now, commenting on the above post of yours: JakaswangaAs I have said to Abdul, judges are also Kenyan who, like you and me, have an interest in the good of the country. I doubt that they can let the country down. The majority of judges not any good I am afraid. Otherwise how do you explain the loss of confidence by Kenyans in their judiciary, which necessitated the vetting? Because it was a rotten group of professionals. In between a few good men and women perhaps. 2 The actually found it was worth sacking him. Then the CJ intervened. Creating an alcove window for him to slip back in. You missed the great argument between the LSK under Mutua, and an accolade of other parties! Mutunga had to meac culpa! Mutua too had been accused of lynching a muslim! JakaswangaYou are mixing politics with the law. I shall leave you alone with your mixtures, hoping you will yield a sensible solvent. Mixing politics and law! Law without politics wouldn't interest me much I agree. i want to know how lawyers explain the word integrity in Kenyan law, vis a vis two indictees at the ICC, and high office. You will notice you can not, yet it is an issue of national importance. In other words, the constitution could be FAILING before the shout of its promulgation has died. Of course, you wouldn't understand the ramifications of that failure. Even failed states have their CJs, and high courts I can tell you! So get the politics right I must, and that forces me to think law through. Not merely know its protocols and outward forms. You look misinformed. Did i say am the lone hero? Don't you know there is a drive to collect 2 million signatures? and don't you know of activists who have been beaten into hospital on this issues? And The women who picketed the law-courts? I am simply doing it part-time on Jukwaa. By the way, a proposed March to besiege parliament on integrity was smashed apart by police sometime last year. You apparently have no idea how hot these issues are to many people! You think the IEBC would be doing its job, letting the at least 1.5 million Kenyan votes outside be counted as spoilt? Jesus Sadik, wake up! In a tight election, that amount of spoilt ballots is a form of rigging, by exclusion, unless they all mathematically can be ascribed to the winning party, in which case the argument is merely about his MARGIN of win! CJ had to intervene because of this: TIME AND TIDE WAITS FOR NO MAN. With the election date set, the integrity question of candidates must have a deadline within which it should be resolved. That is the rational position, whether in law or not. Setting Priorities, that is an administrative definition of an executive. The CJ is administratively and executive office --so I call him on it!. This integrity thing I certify a matter of national importance, because of the cases involving the other leading ticket, Uhuruto. Now, where is the rocket science here which needs a year of lawyers fidgeting on their stinking under-wears at the bench? =============== How was the idea reached to launch tribunals like at Nuremberg? Is it not so that a highly-regarded legal mind was asked to form a team of sages, and then ordered SOLVE! Then one of them remembered an earlier war where a young lawyer had used the phrase: some crimes are so horrid, they must be considered against HUMANITY! --People had laughed then, but now the time had arrived for the idea to be put in practice, reasoned the sage, and sold it to the allied powers! Sadik, a CJ from Osgoode would know these precedents! Did you catch Githu Muigai trying desperately to find a legal loophole to differentiate between Uhuru as Finance Minister ---resigning, and Uhuru as DPM, NOT resigning! [interesting for academic purposes!]
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 2, 2013 1:14:00 GMT 3
My friend, you are trying very hard to attract my attention to no avail. If you persist and annoy me, I shall retaliate in the best way I know how. Be very warned. Interesting when a person takes the time to state that you will not get his attention. Hmm. I am warned: you'll tell Jukwaa that I've got it, and I'll tell them how I got it. Haven't we been through that a couple of times? Let's try and keep family-stuff within the family, OK? So, then, how about we try to deal with the logic instead. I think all of us would prefer that. By the way, I believe "Foucault" is pronounced "fock-all"? (Is that right?) Just curious. Anyway .... sounds like it's all good stuff. Bipolitics through deprivation, passing through insecurity. [cf Sen, A. ditto et. al.] Very deep or something. Perhaps abdulmote will explain the very deep link to the integrity cases that we were discussing. [op. cit. & Fockall, p20, par.2(iv)]
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Feb 2, 2013 1:21:57 GMT 3
Sadik, I admire your confidence in our 'J'. It is encouraging. And I also do appreciate your point on the court's calender and what have you. But somethings do merit a seat of priority when it comes to Judicial decisions and strongly believe that this is certainly one of them. When a matter of such importance and time is of critical essence, the courts cannot afford the luxury of sticking with its calender. Not when the nations' well-being is at stake as in this case, or on matters of life and and death. Not in Kenya or any where in the world for that matter and I am sure you can think of many. The potential repercussions are pretty obvious for any one to contemplate, especially if the decision could be negative as I had stated earlier. Unless of course such a decision will have no considerable consequences, which I think is not the case here, or a negative decision is not anticipated at all! Having said that, I think it is not fair to assume we bear "inferiority complex" simply for raising a logical and viable criticism on our systems of governance, and by comparing ours to the "whiteman's". Indeed, I believe, as an African nation, we are far behind when it comes to matters of governance. Without doubt, it is by learning to criticise our own shortfalls in comparison to others that we may learn from those who have already been there before us. AbdulI agree that the angle under which the High Court will make it's judgment is very narrow. This is a challenge of judicial review, which as you know, literally means if there are no flaws on how the IEBC reached its decision, the High Court can do anything. Jakaswanga is hoping the Court will literally bar the duo, when that job is actually for the IEBC to do. I also agree that we are far away from the Europe system, but that's simply because we have been deprived of capability. I refer you to Amartya Sen and poverty as a deprivation of capability in relation to justice outreach. This ties in with Foucault’s biopolitics and brings in the notion of human security. Sadik & Abdulmote,Actually what I want is the highest court in the land to make a land mark ruling which shall set the precedent on all matters public office and integrity of the candidate applying! A ruling thought out, reasoned and and grounded in the letter and spirit of the contsitutution and law. Stuff like yes, I am sorry folks, but when our fore-fathers wrote all men are born equal, they ALSO MEANT BLACK MAN. Does not mean you can not use them as slaves though, but know they are equal, and the law considers them so! So unchangeable was that ruling it led to a civil war for a nation to define herself by her own constitution, adopted 'freely' at independence! I am thinking on integrity 200 years from now! Uhuruto barred or not isn't really the problem I have. I want deep thought, edified in law on this integrity issue.
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Feb 2, 2013 1:34:01 GMT 3
My friend, you are trying very hard to attract my attention to no avail. If you persist and annoy me, I shall retaliate in the best way I know how. Be very warned. May be I should leave you boys to a it now, and come back later when your hormones have peaked in the blood, and the curve is going down! This subject is worth a lot of attention, and I hope it attracts the best in you, not the bar-hall brawl contributions! [leave those ones to yours truly!]
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 2, 2013 1:40:08 GMT 3
May be I should leave you boys to a it now, and come back later when your hormones have peaked in the blood, and the curve is going down! I'm a man of peace. So, I promise that (in the interests of peace, love, and unity) I will not mention, for the next 24 hrs, Camel-Back Ibrahim or Speedy-Gonzalez Warsamme. So, then. Let's get back to this big ruling ...
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Feb 2, 2013 1:48:02 GMT 3
JakaswangaI trust in the professionalism of the judges and if need be they will be able to rule against whomsoever they deem unfit for whatsoever reason they see fit. As you know, I don’t usually mind read and cannot tell what the judges are thinking until that time when they publish their judgment. Sometimes they take too long to publish that judgment, that it becomes a circus. Like the doc with the recipe coming when the patient is long dead. Sadik, Earlier on you lectured me about courts and their weighty protocols that take time, and wheels that turn slow and the rest: But when Ibrahim handled in 48 hours cases which had lain dormant for as long as 8 years [to the satisfaction of the CJ, a few days before his vetting]. Reason it now to me in terms of procedures and protocols which take time and must be followed. Looking at it, I said Ibrahim is a goat. You said it was his religion the cause for his bashing. So I give you a second chance to explain Ibrahim to me. [But you could also defend yourself by saying I am lying: there were no cases he slept on for years, only to clear in a few days]! www.citizennews.co.ke/news/2012/local/item/4333-cj-under-fire-over-shielding-mohammed-ibrahimwww.businessdailyafrica.com/Judges-Ibrahim--Nambuye-found-unfit-to-hold-office/-/539546/1458948/-/3at6awz/-/index.html=========== Now, commenting on the above post of yours: The majority of judges not any good I am afraid. Otherwise how do you explain the loss of confidence by Kenyans in their judiciary, which necessitated the vetting? Because it was a rotten group of professionals. In between a few good men and women perhaps. 2 The actually found it was worth sacking him. Then the CJ intervened. Creating an alcove window for him to slip back in. You missed the great argument between the LSK under Mutua, and an accolade of other parties! Mutunga had to meac culpa! Mutua too had been accused of lynching a muslim! Mixing politics and law! Law without politics wouldn't interest me much I agree. i want to know how lawyers explain the word integrity in Kenyan law, vis a vis two indictees at the ICC, and high office. You will notice you can not, yet it is an issue of national importance. In other words, the constitution could be FAILING before the shout of its promulgation has died. Of course, you wouldn't understand the ramifications of that failure. Even failed states have their CJs, and high courts I can tell you! So get the politics right I must, and that forces me to think law through. Not merely know its protocols and outward forms. You look misinformed. Did i say am the lone hero? Don't you know there is a drive to collect 2 million signatures? and don't you know of activists who have been beaten into hospital on this issues? And The women who picketed the law-courts? I am simply doing it part-time on Jukwaa. By the way, a proposed March to besiege parliament on integrity was smashed apart by police sometime last year. You apparently have no idea how hot these issues are to many people! You think the IEBC would be doing its job, letting the at least 1.5 million Kenyan votes outside be counted as spoilt? Jesus Sadik, wake up! In a tight election, that amount of spoilt ballots is a form of rigging, by exclusion, unless they all mathematically can be ascribed to the winning party, in which case the argument is merely about his MARGIN of win! CJ had to intervene because of this: TIME AND TIDE WAITS FOR NO MAN. With the election date set, the integrity question of candidates must have a deadline within which it should be resolved. That is the rational position, whether in law or not. Setting Priorities, that is an administrative definition of an executive. The CJ is administratively and executive office --so I call him on it!. This integrity thing I certify a matter of national importance, because of the cases involving the other leading ticket, Uhuruto. Now, where is the rocket science here which needs a year of lawyers fidgeting on their stinking under-wears at the bench? =============== How was the idea reached to launch tribunals like at Nuremberg? Is it not so that a highly-regarded legal mind was asked to form a team of sages, and then ordered SOLVE! Then one of them remembered an earlier war where a young lawyer had used the phrase: some crimes are so horrid, they must be considered against HUMANITY! --People had laughed then, but now the time had arrived for the idea to be put in practice, reasoned the sage, and sold it to the allied powers! Sadik, a CJ from Osgoode would know these precedents! Did you catch Githu Muigai trying desperately to find a legal loophole to differentiate between Uhuru as Finance Minister ---resigning, and Uhuru as DPM, NOT resigning! [interesting for academic purposes!] JakaswangaI think we have both said our piece. Let it rest there. I had a long debate with a friend about the integrity of Uhuru. The argument was whether we should deal with his personal or institutional integrity. The argument is crystallized in Waweru's article, below, see if you can make sense out of it. ..the mere fact that Uhuru and Ruto are indictees at the ICC is a powerful issue which, on balance, can be expected to play in favour of the ODM coalition: they can reasonably argue that to elect either Uhuru or Ruto to high office would be to deal a serious blow to the country’s reputation, with consequences for its international relations, and hence its solvency. (In this, they will be helped and hindered by Kofi Annan’s increasingly unsubtle attempts to influence the election.) The alliance’s expected counter — that they come in peace, and that ODM itself was at the centre of the violence — will get an airing, but it amounts to little more than a tu quoque.
But perhaps the most serious issue facing the Uhuruto is the possibility of disqualification on the grounds of integrity. A recent court case, whose movers had sought a ruling determining whether the pair were eligible under the integrity provisions, has been withdrawn. Its movers claim that the withdrawal is tactical: they intend to pursue similar cases against all the major presidential aspirants, requiring all of them to defend their personal integrity.
The emphasis on personal integrity, while understandable, is misplaced; a little-noticed provision in the constitution regarding institutional integrity is the real barrier. In the most recent ruling on the integrity provisions for candidates, a three-judge bench of the High Court distinguished personal and institutional integrity; it then appeared to find that even if no serious allegations against a candidate’s integrity could be sustained, it would nonetheless be necessary to prevent them taking up the public position if their doing so would impair the institutional integrity of the office to which they hoped to ascend.
Recent discussion regarding the eligibility of both Uhuru and Ruto has turned on the question whether they satisfy the integrity provisions of the constitution, where the integrity provisions were broadly understood as related to personal integrity. However, the legal distinction (as defined by the recent ruling on the case of Mumo Matemu) is between personal and institutional integrity, and makes them independent: even if there is insufficient evidence to arrive at a finding that the candidate lacks integrity, the courts will still bar the appointment if they determine that the candidate’s occupation of the office would weaken the integrity of the office they hope to occupy.
It shouldn’t escape notice that in this case the judges defined institutional integrity (or rather, threats to it) very broadly: the court appears to have held that if the consequence of an individual gaining a public office were that Kenyans would be led to question the impartiality of the institution or its institutional integrity, then this questioning of itself would suffice to impair the institutional integrity of the office, and so suffice to disqualify the candidate who aroused it.
One doesn’t have to agree with the decision to see that the if the precedent is upheld, then the Uhuru-Ruto bid is in serious trouble. While they would not directly oversee the institutions which will try them, the police and security services are responsible for cooperation with foreign and domestic courts in regard of the crimes committed during the post-election violence of 2007–8, and all report to the President. Should their bids succeed, Uhuru and Ruto would then have control over bodies which would be expected to investigate allegations concerning their conduct. Given the Matemu precedent, the courts would be bound to find that the candidatures present a threat to the institutional integrity of those bodies. africanarguments.org/2012/12/05/kenya-the-rise-of-the-‘uhuruto’-by-daniel-waweru/
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Feb 2, 2013 11:09:41 GMT 3
Oloo
I must draw your attention to vile hateful tirade vortexed towards me in this thread. This is unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Feb 15, 2013 9:35:40 GMT 3
In a few hours, the five judge bench will pronounce the obvious, UhuRuto 2013.
|
|
|
Post by abdulmote on Feb 15, 2013 10:20:45 GMT 3
In a few hours, the five judge bench will pronounce the obvious, UhuRuto 2013. The "obvious" indeed Mwalimu. We knew this all along. Check the title of this thread. And some posters within!
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 15, 2013 11:48:13 GMT 3
The case has started crumbling with the High Court declaring it has no jurisdiction in matters involving election of a president and this mandate belongs to the Supreme court.
The IEBC has the mandate to clear election candidates and the HC only comes into play if a case is filed to show that the actions of the IEBC in accepting to nominate were illegal.
I think this case is done and only the ballot will stop the two from becoming president!
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 15, 2013 12:47:51 GMT 3
At the end of the case, the judges have awarded the respondents the costs of the case. Now the NGOs that were pushing the case being primarily brief case outfits will be thrown out of business for they surely cannot afford the battery of advocates that had been employed by the respondent!
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 15, 2013 16:53:58 GMT 3
The case has started crumbling with the High Court declaring it has no jurisdiction ... Cases in court for one year and then the court decides it has no jusridiction. Could someone have considered that little matter a bit earlier. Never mind; I like the ruling: the fun continues. I'm going by the Daily Nation on this one .... The panel supposedly says that "it has no jurisdiction to hear matters on qualification or disqualification of presidential candidates."which seems like a clear end to the matter. But, having decided they have no jurisdiction, they then go on to say that "We cannot exercise the rights of citizens to choose leaders of their choice,"A long with a bunch of other stuff that amount to comentary on a matter in which they have no jurisdiction and which tell one how they would have ruled had they found they had jurisdiction. Hmm.
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Feb 15, 2013 16:56:30 GMT 3
At the end of the case, the judges have awarded the respondents the costs of the case. Now the NGOs that were pushing the case being primarily brief case outfits will be thrown out of business for they surely cannot afford the battery of advocates that had been employed by the respondent! Heheheee! Kamale, when it rains it pours; what a week UhuRuto are having, exactly what they needed as we sprint to the final two weeks. Raila must now engage a very good plan B if at he has any, otherwise this thing could be over with as early as end of next week. The energy and enthusiasm on the ground is amazing, even those who were sitting on the fence not sure what was coming next are now on board. Now, back to the case, the court literally shut all doors for Raila and his minions. They just do not have any other panya route, it is over. They will have to face the son of Jomo in this race, and if he wins, he is likely to see his term through, either from the Hague or Nairobi unless Raila wins majority in both houses. Even Mutunga and his SC wont help them. Very soon, change the constitution choruses will begin all over again, a very bad place to be if you are a Raila supporter.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 15, 2013 17:50:40 GMT 3
Mmkuu
Salamu to the sons of african gentlemen over at Mukibi's!
This is a case that should never have been in court in the form it was in as it would have set an extremely dangerous precedent in future elections and also on the effect to the Bill of Rights.
Fortunately the courts have more wisdom than the politically blind who see things for the now as opposed to the future. Uhuru and Ruto will be on the ballot come 4th March.
I would strongly urge those that believe that the duo should not have been on the vote to ensure they actually cast their votes against the duo by voting for one they prefer. The mere fact of voting will be their idea of a moral victory...and if there are many more like minded Kenyans, you can be sure the message will have been sent to anyone in the predicament of the two that the people of Kenya can take a stand.
In the likely event that the people of Kenya actually vote in more numbers for the duo, I hope the refusniks stuck in CORD will accept that a majority of Kenyans could possible have a better idea on how such matters are dealt with!
|
|
|
Post by merkeju on Feb 15, 2013 21:02:54 GMT 3
At the end of the case, the judges have awarded the respondents the costs of the case. Now the NGOs that were pushing the case being primarily brief case outfits will be thrown out of business for they surely cannot afford the battery of advocates that had been employed by the respondent! Heheheee! Kamale, when it rains it pours; what a week UhuRuto are having, exactly what they needed as we sprint to the final two weeks. Raila must now engage a very good plan B if at he has any, otherwise this thing could be over with as early as end of next week. The energy and enthusiasm on the ground is amazing, even those who were sitting on the fence not sure what was coming next are now on board. Now, back to the case, the court literally shut all doors for Raila and his minions. They just do not have any other panya route, it is over. They will have to face the son of Jomo in this race, and if he wins, he is likely to see his term through, either from the Hague or Nairobi unless Raila wins majority in both houses. Even Mutunga and his SC wont help them. Very soon, change the constitution choruses will begin all over again, a very bad place to be if you are a Raila supporter. Mwalimu I sometimes wonder if the Uhuru and Ruto's supporters have any other person to blame for any action against them except Raila Amolo Odinga, from Raila taking them to Hague to Raila taking them to Kenyan courts due to integrity question, you want to tell me no Kenyan has a right to question their eligibility, does any Kenyan want justice for the crimes committed during 2007/2008, was Raila,Waki? who compiled the names of those responsible, was Raila the one who shouted don't be vague lets go to Haque? Did Raila put the integrity bill in our constitution? So Mwalimu Kenyans can act without Raila's influence, don't look for sympathy votes by using Raila's name, the plan of you and your friends of making Raila the "Devil" will backfire come March 4, now your role models have nominated the controversial police appointees who have questionable characters and expect the police to be reformed, this are actions we expect in Uhuru and Ruto's government, people who don't care about their actions affect others.
|
|
|
Post by merkeju on Feb 15, 2013 21:28:41 GMT 3
Court clears Uhuru, Ruto to vie
By Wahome Thuku
NAIROBI, KENYA: Jubilee Alliance Presidential candidate Uhuru Kenyatta and his running mate William Ruto will vie in the March 4 elections after an integrity case filed against them before the High Court flopped.
The five judge-bench ruled that the integrity case cannot hold water as per the Constitution.
They said Uhuru and Ruto have been nominated by their respective parties and cleared by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission to contest in the elections. So now they blame the IEBC and their parties for clearing them and nominating them. They ruled that the court has not been informed of any trial that led to the two being jailed for more than six months.
The judges said the Constitution stipulates that any person charged is presumed innocent until proven guilty. So why did they step aside as ministers if they are innocent
The judge also ruled that High Court has no jurisdiction to deal with disputes on nomination and election of presidential candidates. Then why make the ruling if they have no jurisdiction, why not send them to the right jurisdiction
The judges said the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear issues touching on those aspiring for the office of the presidency after their nomination and after they are elected to office. This is what their judgement would have been
The judges at the same time dismissed an application to have an envelope by Justice Phillip Waki handed to Koffi Annan and later given to the International Criminal Court be handed to the court.
They said the issue on the letter was not party to the petition and has also been overtaken by events.
The five judges are Mbogholi Msagha, Luka Kimaru, Hellen Omondi, Pauline Nyamweya and George Kimondo.
The integrity case was filed by four NGOs and was the only hurdle on Uhuru and Ruto’s path to the presidential ballot.
The four consolidated petitions filed by Centre for Policy and Conflict, Kenya Human Rights Commission, International Commission of Jurists Kenya and Public Corruption, Ethics and Governance Watch.
They were seeking a declaration that Uhuru and Ruto’s candidature is contrary to Chapter Six of the Constitution since they are facing charges of crime against humanity at the ICC.
The court in January this year struck out the names of Prime Minister Raila Odinga and Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka from the petition, freeing them from integrity scrutiny.
Also freed from similar determination was Deputy Prime Minister Musalia Mudavadi who is the Amani Coalition presidential candidate.
The three escaped through a technical hitch, after the petitioners failed to serve them with the court papers, prompting the High Court to strike their names out of the suit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2013 23:24:54 GMT 3
well, it ain't over till it's over. Court ruling on Uhuru, Ruto case to be challenged
By Wahome Thuku
NAIROBI; KENYA: The battle to stop Jubilee Alliance luminaries Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto from running for the top offices could now head to the Supreme Court.
One of the petitioners in the cases thrown out by the High Court on Friday said they were taking the challenge and would take the integrity petition to the top most court.
Mr Ndung’u Wainaina the executive director of International Center for Policy and Conflict (ICPC), who were petitioners in the four cases, said in a statement that they would also challenge orders issued on Friday to pay costs of the suits to those they had sued.
“For sure, we are ready for Supreme Court engagement. The Court was categorical the jurisdiction lies with Supreme Court,” Ndungu said.
But lawyers involved in the cases argued that taking the matter further to the Supreme Court could be an uphill task that could heavily interfere with the March 4, General Election.
The Supreme Court has recently gazette rules on how disputes arising from the nomination of presidential candidates by the IEBC and those arising from the actual election should filed in court, heard and determined.
But using the rules to challenge the nomination of a presidential candidate will be a challenge for any petitioner. Under the timelines set out in the rules, the period between filing a petition and determining it could be anything beyond three weeks
Filing papers in such a petition alone will cost you over Sh500,000 as filing fees which is a figure set in the rules. In addition the petitioner must deposit Sh1 million as security to be paid to the other parties in the event that he or she loses the case.
The rules set establish how the papers should be filed, served on the respective parties and how the court should organise and hold a housekeeping pre-trial conference before the actual hearing of the petition and determination.
The printing of presidential ballots will already be completed by the time the case is determined and changing them could cost the tax payers a great deal.
Ndung’u said the new constitution had been enacted to serve the country and had to be tested.
He said it was strange that even after that ruling judges went ahead to make adverse inference on the issues in the cases.
“To make matters worse, they issued costs orders contrary to principles governing costs in public interest litigations,” he added saying he was preparing for battle at the Supreme Court. www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000077390&story_title=Kenya-Court-ruling-on-Uhuru,-Ruto-case-to-be-challenged
|
|
|
Post by deyiengs on Feb 15, 2013 23:51:03 GMT 3
Wacheni watu waende kwa depe! let the match be fair and square.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 16, 2013 0:22:33 GMT 3
well, it ain't over till it's over. Court ruling on Uhuru, Ruto case to be challenged
By Wahome Thuku
NAIROBI; KENYA: The battle to stop Jubilee Alliance luminaries Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto from running for the top offices could now head to the Supreme Court.
One of the petitioners in the cases thrown out by the High Court on Friday said they were taking the challenge and would take the integrity petition to the top most court.
Mr Ndung’u Wainaina the executive director of International Center for Policy and Conflict (ICPC), who were petitioners in the four cases, said in a statement that they would also challenge orders issued on Friday to pay costs of the suits to those they had sued.
“For sure, we are ready for Supreme Court engagement. The Court was categorical the jurisdiction lies with Supreme Court,” Ndungu said.
But lawyers involved in the cases argued that taking the matter further to the Supreme Court could be an uphill task that could heavily interfere with the March 4, General Election.
The Supreme Court has recently gazette rules on how disputes arising from the nomination of presidential candidates by the IEBC and those arising from the actual election should filed in court, heard and determined.
But using the rules to challenge the nomination of a presidential candidate will be a challenge for any petitioner. Under the timelines set out in the rules, the period between filing a petition and determining it could be anything beyond three weeks
Filing papers in such a petition alone will cost you over Sh500,000 as filing fees which is a figure set in the rules. In addition the petitioner must deposit Sh1 million as security to be paid to the other parties in the event that he or she loses the case.
The rules set establish how the papers should be filed, served on the respective parties and how the court should organise and hold a housekeeping pre-trial conference before the actual hearing of the petition and determination.
The printing of presidential ballots will already be completed by the time the case is determined and changing them could cost the tax payers a great deal.
Ndung’u said the new constitution had been enacted to serve the country and had to be tested.
He said it was strange that even after that ruling judges went ahead to make adverse inference on the issues in the cases.
“To make matters worse, they issued costs orders contrary to principles governing costs in public interest litigations,” he added saying he was preparing for battle at the Supreme Court. www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000077390&story_title=Kenya-Court-ruling-on-Uhuru,-Ruto-case-to-be-challenged Good luck. Experience tells us that there are only two sure ways to deal with a hot potato: (a) pass it from one hand to another; (b) put it down and allow enough time for it to cool down. This one didn't cool down after one year, so it was passed to another hand. Still too hot, so it is being passed to yet another hand. Now we go back to procedures, protocols, and processes, with the elections not too far away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 0:35:19 GMT 3
well, it ain't over till it's over. Court ruling on Uhuru, Ruto case to be challenged
By Wahome Thuku
NAIROBI; KENYA: The battle to stop Jubilee Alliance luminaries Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto from running for the top offices could now head to the Supreme Court.
One of the petitioners in the cases thrown out by the High Court on Friday said they were taking the challenge and would take the integrity petition to the top most court.
Mr Ndung’u Wainaina the executive director of International Center for Policy and Conflict (ICPC), who were petitioners in the four cases, said in a statement that they would also challenge orders issued on Friday to pay costs of the suits to those they had sued.
“For sure, we are ready for Supreme Court engagement. The Court was categorical the jurisdiction lies with Supreme Court,” Ndungu said.
But lawyers involved in the cases argued that taking the matter further to the Supreme Court could be an uphill task that could heavily interfere with the March 4, General Election.
The Supreme Court has recently gazette rules on how disputes arising from the nomination of presidential candidates by the IEBC and those arising from the actual election should filed in court, heard and determined.
But using the rules to challenge the nomination of a presidential candidate will be a challenge for any petitioner. Under the timelines set out in the rules, the period between filing a petition and determining it could be anything beyond three weeks
Filing papers in such a petition alone will cost you over Sh500,000 as filing fees which is a figure set in the rules. In addition the petitioner must deposit Sh1 million as security to be paid to the other parties in the event that he or she loses the case.
The rules set establish how the papers should be filed, served on the respective parties and how the court should organise and hold a housekeeping pre-trial conference before the actual hearing of the petition and determination.
The printing of presidential ballots will already be completed by the time the case is determined and changing them could cost the tax payers a great deal.
Ndung’u said the new constitution had been enacted to serve the country and had to be tested.
He said it was strange that even after that ruling judges went ahead to make adverse inference on the issues in the cases.
“To make matters worse, they issued costs orders contrary to principles governing costs in public interest litigations,” he added saying he was preparing for battle at the Supreme Court. www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000077390&story_title=Kenya-Court-ruling-on-Uhuru,-Ruto-case-to-be-challenged Good luck. Experience tells us that there are only two sure ways to deal with a hot potato: (a) pass it from one hand to another; (b) put it down and allow enough time for it to cool down. This one didn't cool down after one year, so it was passed to another hand. Still too hot, so it is being passed to yet another hand. Now we go back to procedures, protocols, and processes, with the elections not too far away. otisit'll be CJ mutunga and 5 judges. no deputy. as Nereah quipped what is taking so long to hire a deputy. anyways, that is another conversation. When this case is heard @ that Supreme Court we will then know what CJ mutunga and those 5 judges are made of. let's see where their procedures, protocol and processes leave Kenya. I don't have to have any legal trainning to know that Uhuruto should not be allowed to contest any office in the land let alone the presidency and deputy.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 16, 2013 1:11:17 GMT 3
Kathure:
I get you. By the time the first piece of paper gets to the Supreme Court .... Wake me after the elections and tell me how the felons fared.
A thought: What would Kenyans do if a President Uhuru declared a state of emergency, emasculated the judiciary, bought the legislature, had the GSU cracking heads, etc.? Remember that even with all the fights and sacrifices by Kenyans, Nyayo needed some convincing to go. And he wasn't riding a tiger.
Thinking of this possibility, I took a break to go hug my Other Passport.
|
|