|
Post by joblesscorner on Feb 16, 2013 1:25:55 GMT 3
FORA has alot of money to spend,
Come March
MIMI, xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx, NAAPA KWAMBA, NITAKUWA MWAMINIFU KWA WANAINCHI WA JAMHURI YA KENYA.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2013 1:37:24 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. otisare you telling me that the courts will not expedite this case? let uhruto win and then declare a state of emergency. if Kenyans let them get away with that, then i won't just be hugging my other passport. i shall be smoching it. ;D ;D ;D but on a serious note, i do realise that i can afford to speak living as i am in a place where i'm pretty much sure I'll wake up safe and sound.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 16, 2013 4:46:02 GMT 3
are you telling me that the courts will not expedite this case? let uhruto win and then declare a state of emergency. if Kenyans let them get away with that, then i won't just be hugging my other passport. i shall be smoching it. ;D ;D ;D but on a serious note, i do realise that i can afford to speak living as i am in a place where i'm pretty much sure I'll wake up safe and sound. Expedite? Do you have in mind the same court that has taken a year to decide it has no jurisdiction? Never mind .... On Monday, the elections will be 2 weeks away. Regardless of how "expeditious" the court is minded to be, even a student in the 1st semester of first-year law can get the matter delayed by at least another month. Before I go on, let me state that I will not consider Ruto in my calculations of the unimaginables. Ruto is being used, and the first time he says ng'wee, we can rely on the hypothetical President Uhuru to sort him out, via a short, sharp knife in the small of the back---a flight to Amsterdam. Back to the point ... Kenyans---bless our little capitalist hearts---have never been the sort to rise up en masse against oppression. Even in the case of Nyayo it took a long time and a lot of abuse to get people really worked up. By and large, Kenyans take the view that it's not smart to dismantle the very treadmill on which they are trying to win a rat-race. Add to that the fact that Uhuru and Ruto actually do have significant support, and "let them get away with it" begins to look like the stuff of fairy tales. (That they should have such support even as they face trials for the most heinous crimes known to humanity tells you another thing about Kenyans, but that's for later.) Kenyans are actually suckers for punishment and on a larger scale that at first appears to be the case. I am actually quite serious about my remarks above. I long gave up on the idea that Kenya can really change in my lifetime. I even doubt that it can change in my children's lifetime. But I do have an emotional attachment to the place, so I hope that I will one day spend time in a different Kenya with my grandchildren. Nevertheless, such hope depends on the assumption that enough of my compatriots also wish to see a different Kenya. If Jubilee wins, in free and fair elections, I would accept that as the will of the Kenyan people. I would then bid farewell to the same people. (The only time I use a Kenyan passport is when entering Kenya, and I should have no problems coming as one of those tourists bearing sought-after foreign currency.) As I see it, the question for Kenyans is very simple: Uhuru wishes to become president so that he can escape the ICC. If he does succeed, what will he not do to keep his freedom?It is a pity that even on a forum like Jukwaa a great deal of teh discussions about the future have boiled down to "our man will win!", "see this poll!", "bugger the other side!", ...
|
|
|
Post by mwalimumkuu on Feb 16, 2013 7:09:35 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 Kathure,I think some of these things have been overtaken by events. If I am not mistaken, I read somewhere that a pre-poll petition on the presidency ought to be filed with the SC a day after IEBC nomination. As you may be aware, this period came and went more than two weeks ago. I am right, the earliest another petition can come on the two gentlemen in after March 4. I will, however, need to recheck this.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 16, 2013 7:10:56 GMT 3
I am now getting more reporting on the ruling, and it appears that the circus is even more entertaining than I thought:
“It is common knowledge the two have been indicted but since Kenyan courts and the ICC are of concurrent jurisdiction, we cannot adjudicate over the same matter. Only the ICC can bar them to run for public office,” ruled the judges.
No, no, no. The ICC cannot do that. There is nothing in the Rome Statute or ICC jurisprudence that would lead the High Court judges to make such a [redacted: strong, possibly offensive language] statement. As a matter of fact, the court is actually constrained when it comes to "national" issues.
And this is not just "hypothetical". It was settled, in a very direct way, when Bemba (while in detention) announced that he intended to run for the presidency of his country. The court's view, in a nutshell: "we can't stop you, but it will have to be from Cell No. X in the Hague Detention Centre".
Welcome to The New & Improved Kenyan Judiciary.
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Feb 16, 2013 10:06:14 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. [/color][/quote] Do I get it correct, that this court is of the opinion that the IEBC position in this case -- no integrity issues respective Uhuruto, overrides anything to the contrary the court can interpret as law? On the other hand this ruling is clear in an important sense. The recent national attempt at political hygiene by inserting an INTEGRITY CLAUSE in the CONSTITUTION has flopped. So the political problematic, which resulted in the desire to have that clause dictate the content of the characters running for public office, remains intact. Thwarted but still latent. There has been no movement to ease it. Politics is still the impunity of KANU-like morality. So, back to the drawing board for Wanjiku. The conflict must escalate, but which way? 1. recidivism. --The ruling elite goes back to their old ways, unopposed. 2. The inertia of muddling on and taking it as it comes. You win some you lose some. 3. Conflict heats into legal suits which jam the courts, leading to their discrediting such that it is a legal collapse anyway. CJ fully naked.
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Feb 16, 2013 10:19:21 GMT 3
elections.nation.co.ke/news/Five-judges-shun-politics-/-/1631868/1695522/-/81oj1nz/-/index.htmlFive judges shun politics By PAUL OGEMBA pogemba@ke.nationmedia.com ( email the author) Posted Saturday, February 16 2013 at 00:30 In Summary The bench said issues in the petition fall in the ambit of the Supreme CourtIn determining that petitions challenging the suitability of Mr Uhuru Kenyatta and Mr William Ruto to hold public office lacked merit, the judges gave a final wording on the integrity question and the role of the High Court in presidential elections. Three civil society groups who filed the petitions had urged the five-judge bench to make a declaration that Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto were not qualified to contest the top seats but they declined and passed the buck to the Supreme Court. “Presidential elections are a long process starting from nominations and the issues we are being asked to adjudicate fall within the premise of the Supreme Court. We therefore lack jurisdiction to declare the two unsuitable to contest the presidency,” ruled the judges. The bench ruled that their jurisdiction would only be limited to interpreting the Constitution in relation to Chapter Six, but even that would be to a certain limit. According to the judges, the High Court’s jurisdiction on interpreting the chapter should have not been invoked when there were alternative constitutional institutions where the lobby groups should have lodged their reservations about the candidature of the two.On the crimes against humanity facing the Jubilee partners, the judges ruled that despite the serious nature of the charges the two are still presumed to be innocent and that alone cannot be a basis for denying them the right to seek elective posts. They also ruled that the prayer to have the two relinquish their parliamentary seats and to bar the IEBC from accepting their nominations had been overtaken by events. ;D The bench slapped the petitioners with cost of the suit.@reports the DN. 1. I always held the opinion the HC would be in all its elements, interpreting the constitution in relation to chapter six and the relevant bills, in such an authoritative and thorough way as to establish a benchmark ruling, or precedent, for future reference on similar cases for generations to come, so long they use this constitution. 2. There is this strange tail these esteemed judges add to their kindergarten giggles: EVEN THAT [interpretation respective chap. 6] WOULD ONLY BE TO A CERTAIN LIMIT! That limit, I am all ears to hear it, and how it is set!
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Feb 16, 2013 19:21:59 GMT 3
elections.nation.co.ke/news/-/1631868/1695908/-/p7l8yvz/-/index.html Posted Saturday, February 16 2013 at 13:15 Rights groups in new bid to block Uhuru, RutoCivil society groups that lost a bid to block the candidature of Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto will not relent in ensuring the two do not assume office if elected. The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) and the Kenyans for Peace with Truth and Justice (KPTJ) rejected the decision by judges Mbogholi Msagha, Pauline Nyamweya, Luka Kimaru, Hellen Omondi and George Kimondo. KHRC denounced the five judges’ decision to have it pay the costs of the suit. The Commission said this has set a dangerous precedent as it is likely to deter honest Kenyans from asking the courts to rule on matters of public interest.KHRC chairman Makau Mutua said Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto are not suspects at the International Criminal Court (ICC) but indictees, and this means they wouldn’t be eligible to compete for elections to public office.“You are indicted once the courts have decided that there is probable cause for you to be indicted because it is likely that the crimes for which you are indicted have been committed by you,” said Prof Makau.“ A suspect is someone who has not been indicted. An indictee is a person for whom evidence has been adduced by a court of law and has been found to be credible linking that person to the crimes for which they are accused.”He said this is the basis of their opposition and their rejection of the court ruling because the judges found that the matter shouldn’t be decided by the High Court but went ahead and commented. “It is Law 101 that if a judicial tribunal decides that it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a matter or to hear a matter that has been put before it, that tribunal has laid down its tools and should not deal with that issue any further,” said Prof Mutua. He said the non-governmental organisation would begin proceedings to ensure Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto do not hold office even if the Jubilee Coalition they head wins the presidential election.KHRC executive director Atsango Chesoni said the Commission has no idea yet what the lawyers in the case would ask for as fees. The Commission is likely to challenge the decision on costs. This means that apart from their lawyer Lempaa Suyianka, it would also have to foot the costs of Evans Monari for Mr Kenyatta, Katwa Kigen for Mr Ruto and Kibe Muigai for The National Alliance (TNA) among others. “We consider the orders for costs against vigilant civil society actors to have the effect of discouraging diligent citizens from seeking judicial adjudication of matters involving the constitution,” said the KPTJ in a statement. I say: Once the CJ burried his head in the sand and refused to constitute a panel of wise greybeards at law to help him navigate the chapter six [integrity] raminifications in the new dispensation, he opened a floodgate for processes procedures and protocols, and prosecutions suits and comedy. But the bill, the bill. The argument about who picks it up .... --------------------------
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Feb 16, 2013 19:29:56 GMT 3
elections.nation.co.ke/news/Uhuru-Ruto-get-green-light-to-run-for-State-House-/-/1631868/1695520/-/146x14c/-/index.htmlcommon sense woul think they could have had the legal know-how to see and say this before accepting to sit on the case. Ah, of course this deep insight had not yet hit them like the the miraculous Lo! Behold! here is the truth! reward in petto! Or, they of course knew they were too junior to hazard any legla opinion on the subject, but the lures of sitting allowances, not to mention what Otishotish would call the 'fringe benefits of infinitely extended procedures, protocols and processes', could lead the men of the bench to in wayward rulings. My qualms continue: the entertainment is good, but I am being charged too much for it. I still demand a refund! I do not like being ripped off, I am the type who works for and earns every cent i pay tax on. I could shrug at rigged elections. Politicians are never the best brains in your country, so they could do that. But when the best trained minds in your country, and really some of the guys I sat with in school who ended up doing law were pretty clever, start reasoning in pedestrian ways like these Mutunga bench Judges, I get hot and disturbed. It means clever educated people think: the rule of law can be taken for granted. Now, when some soldier-boy happens to comes in, and takes you up on that taking law for granted, be sure you want to be some place else. Chapter six is dead, I wonder what else is already dead in the land.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 16, 2013 22:38:49 GMT 3
Jakaswanga:
Remember that we cleaned out the High Court 10 years ago and recently cleaned it out again. So these must be very good people ... or at least the best we've got, which tells us something.
Back to another question that you asked, and tying in an answer from malkia: does anyone see these people ruling that a President Uhuru must be handed over to the ICC? I notice that even small fish like Okemo and Gichuru are giving us quite a run for our money.
|
|
|
Post by abdulmote on Feb 16, 2013 22:50:53 GMT 3
I am in midst of drafting Uhuru's inaugural speech. There are some interesting I shall be looking forward to hear! Tomorrow if I can, I will post it in Jukwaa.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 17, 2013 9:22:47 GMT 3
I am now getting more reporting on the ruling, and it appears that the circus is even more entertaining than I thought: “It is common knowledge the two have been indicted but since Kenyan courts and the ICC are of concurrent jurisdiction, we cannot adjudicate over the same matter. Only the ICC can bar them to run for public office,” ruled the judges.No, no, no. The ICC cannot do that. There is nothing in the Rome Statute or ICC jurisprudence that would lead the High Court judges to make such a [redacted: strong, possibly offensive language] statement. As a matter of fact, the court is actually constrained when it comes to "national" issues. And this is not just "hypothetical". It was settled, in a very direct way, when Bemba (while in detention) announced that he intended to run for the presidency of his country. The court's view, in a nutshell: "we can't stop you, but it will have to be from Cell No. X in the Hague Detention Centre". Welcome to The New & Improved Kenyan Judiciary. Otishotish I think you need to quote the entire statement from the judgement so that the perspective is right. As a man of the law, you owe to Jukwaa folk that cling to your every word. I am certain that if you read the International Crimes Act, the ICC is domesticated as a Kenyan court of the rank of the high court. It also recognises the Rome statute as part of the laws of Kenya (also refer to the constitution on treaties signedbyKenya) so am certain that if the Rome Statute does not provide for obstructing the political activities of the accused, the to that extent being a Kenyan law, the HC cannot countermand that...or can it ?
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Feb 27, 2013 22:40:06 GMT 3
THIS IS FROM THE NAIROBI STAR. Supreme court dismisses elibility case WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2013 - 00:00 -- BY LYDIA MATATA The Supreme Court has dismissed an eligibility case against four presidential candidates. Judges Jackton Ojwang and Mohamed Ibrahim have dismissed a petition to bar presidential candidates Uhuru Kenyatta, Raila Odinga, Peter Kenneth and Musalia Mudavadi from contesting the elections on Monday, next week. The two-judge bench said it will give its reasons for dismissing the case on March 27. A voter, Isaac Aluochier filed the case against the four candidates on February 15. He said the four are not fit to contest the March 4 general elections because they have contravened sections of the constitution which bars state officers from seeking elective posts. He said Raila, Uhuru, Mudavadi and Kenneth were already state officers when they were nominated by their parties and should not have been cleared by the IEBC. The petitioner said he is basing his case on Article 137(2)(b) of the constitution, which states that a person is not qualified for nomination as a presidential candidate or deputy if the person is a state officer or is acting as one. Aluochier said the constitution does not exempt holders of other state offices such as that of the Prime Ministers, Deputy Prime Ministers or ministers. Raila, Uhuru Mudavadi Kalonzo and Kenneth are still state officers, he said. He said IEBC contravened article 27 by not stopping them. Treating equally state officers and those who are not state officers. “ Article 9 2 h provides that a person is disqualified from being elected members of parliament is he found to have in any way contravened chapter six,” he says. According to him, Raila, Kenyatta, Kenneth, Mudavadi and Kalonzo having held offices in political parties while being appointed state officers contravened the law. - See more at: www.the-star.co.ke/news/article-109694/supreme-court-dismisses-elibility-case#sthash.gEUg151o.dpuf
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Feb 27, 2013 23:01:12 GMT 3
This is some chap that was misled by his lawyer....and I hope he did not have to pay for the service!
Former Members of parliament are exempt from this rule by Section 99 (2)(a) of the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Feb 27, 2013 23:32:56 GMT 3
First, it is about Uhuru and Ruto. Then everyone else and his dog get dragged in. Then some people & dogs get thrown out. Back to Square One. Then the case itself finally gets thrown out. So, then, back to ...
"It's déjà vu all over again"--Yogi Berra
But let's congratulate Justice Ibrahim for getting in at least one ruling in under 8 years. Who said caning and discipline don't work?
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Apr 2, 2013 21:17:39 GMT 3
BACK TO THE SAME OLD TRUSTED COURTS AND JUDGES, RECIDIVISM I think this is a key thread in which we documentED the unraveling of the judicial system in Kenya, as a bulwark or tenet of the new cherished dispensation. It all revolves around one word: INTEGRITY. Too hot for our legal system. How, in the Kenyan judicial context, is this concept defined? And to what extent did the new constitution anticipate and endorse in spirit and bills and written laws, ICC indictees, or indictees on any other grave charge, holding the top offices of the land. For two years the courts have not even agonised on ETHICS, moral philosophy. We have on Jukwaa documented the circus which ran for near a year, culminating on a self-disqualification of a Mutunga-select panel of learned friends. Having so skirted around this issue, the courts, in my thinking, surrendered not only an institutional moral superiority, but they became in effect a political tool of the political elite. They could be relied upon not to practice law, but politics. The issue, and near the Truth according to me, was, from the start, that the political class realised a push on integrity, and serious test, would disqualify nearly all the leading candidates. And that is why, behind the scenes, the enjointment motion, first moved by the double-faced activist Agostino, then withdrawn by the forked-tongued politician Netto, was asphyxiated in the bureaucratic black-holes. 1. Could Mudavadi have survived a vetting on Integrity --given goldenburg and the rest? 2. Could Raila have survived the same test, given Maize and the rest? 3. Uhuruto? ha ha ha! 4. Wetangula --of the Tokyo embassy, and Kalonzo of I forget what ... INTEGRITY taken seriously would have killed all these flag-post careers. So we watched as Mutunga dithered and confusedly turned his courts into Kafka-land, to diffuse this mine on the path of both sides of the equation of power. --From then, the only way would be down. The CJ's confusion and lacklustre pronouncements of this are in the public domanin. That is why it was very illustrative that in the august gathering of the supreme court where the best of our learned lawyers debated, and determined the future of Kenya, the concept integrity and ethics stayed out of the submissions. ---IRRELEVANT. Yes, that is lawyers for you. They dismiss the whole life as irrelevant, then think to proceed to make a case. No wonder military men always use and bend them to rationalise whatever they want. 1. The American army and CIA started to torture Jihadists, then ordered lawyers to make it legal. The lawyers came up with what we call the ticking bomb scenario! And the Kenyan lawyer Obama, has become the greatest consumer of that legal yarn. Kenyan lawyers! Damn! even Njakip, the Jukwaa blogger formerly known as Otishotish, wont surprise me when he comes up with a clever rationale why Uhuruto as an African problem should be an African solution! AND FROM A DIFFERENT AGE ALTOGETHER. kenyastockholm.com/2012/11/26/mutunga-sends-signals-that-uhuru-and-ruto-will-not-pass-integrity-test/
|
|