|
Post by OtishOtish on Mar 30, 2018 6:50:30 GMT 3
Welcome back, Ndugu! I struggled with Raila's refusal of accepting Uhuruto's win, which had been upheld by the constitutionally appointed Supreme Court, irrespective of the preceding flaws, which may have stained its freedom to be just. Yes, that was certainly a "problematic" attitude. And there is little to suggest any serious thinking and planning in the "boycotts" and "peoples' president" and what-not. But perhaps water under the bridge now? It would not be entirely unreasonable to see Miguna as something of a jackass; he is certainly not the best example of a man helping his own case. But beyond that lies the big picture: from the top and trickling down, a totally cavalier attitude to law and order. On both sides, bizarre obsessions with "power" and "importance" and "strength" and "popularity" and what-not. A battle of Total Men. Still, Miguna Miguna has different obligations in the keeping of law and order, and therein lies a major difference. You live in the UK. To what extent can you even imagine government official there (however "important" they might be) willfully ignoring court orders (especially from the High Court) in the manner we have seen here? Small-small is how it goes into the abyss. It's never a straightforward, direct leap. And the African head seems to be an especially hard one. Incredibly learning-resistant. Kenya, Part III. Coming up in a Future Near You (Hint: Part II, same-same).
|
|
|
Post by abdulmote on Mar 30, 2018 11:08:17 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Mar 31, 2018 12:33:27 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Apr 2, 2018 13:03:45 GMT 3
Miguna was not returning to Kenya as a deportee but someone returning legitimately with a Canadian passport in hand so he did not need any attention from police unless they had intentions to arrest him.
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Apr 2, 2018 18:49:02 GMT 3
Miguna was not returning to Kenya as a deportee but someone returning legitimately with a Canadian passport in hand so he did not need any attention from police unless they had intentions to arrest him. Those you call deportee had no papers. They identified themselves as Kenyans and were returned to Kenya because they claimed to the USA authorities that they were Kenyans. The same with Miguna seeking entry to Kenya as a citizen by descent who has right of abode. None of them had papers to prove their nationality but the deportee who claimed they were Kenyans, unlike Miguna, were allowed entry.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Apr 3, 2018 15:35:25 GMT 3
Miguna was not returning to Kenya as a deportee but someone returning legitimately with a Canadian passport in hand so he did not need any attention from police unless they had intentions to arrest him. Those you call deportee had no papers. They identified themselves as Kenyans and were returned to Kenya because they claimed to the USA authorities that they were Kenyans. The same with Miguna seeking entry to Kenya as a citizen by descent who has right of abode. None of them had papers to prove their nationality but the deportee who claimed they were Kenyans, unlike Miguna, were allowed entry. For starters I have not called Miguna a deportee, and I also do not agree that he is a Kenyan Citizen notwithstanding being born in Kenya. It would be like Obama claiming Kenyan citizenship because his father was Kenyan! Under the old constitution, he had until the age of 21 to renounce his American citizenship to claim Kenyan citizenship.He did and today he can actually apply for Kenyan citizenship under the new constitution. As for our friend Miguna, his is a simple one. When he became a Canadian citizen, he was immediately stripped of his Kenyan citizenship as required by law - so being born in Kenya was neither here not there. The 2010 constitution however opened a new door for him to regain his Kenyan citizenship (by right rather than naturalisation which would mean it can be revoked) but there was a requirement for him to apply as per the constitution and as stipulated in KCIA. If Kenyans were not too lazy and allowed themselves some time to read Justice Lenaola ruling in Petition 251 of 2014actually explains why Miguna is not entitled to what he is demanding and even why he is illegally holding a Kenyan ID card. It also opens the door for him to be charged for the criminal offence of uttering a false statement in an official document when he used the illegal papers to register himself as a candidate for elections in Kenya. Miguna needs to do what the swahili counsel people - kuwa mpole.....
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Apr 5, 2018 10:31:25 GMT 3
Kamau,
You are naïve on matters of law.
The case you highlighted of Jisvin Chandra Narottam Hemraj Premji Pattni is nonsense. Judge Lenaola was dealing with a case against an Asian man born in Kenya to parents who were not Kenyan. He then claimed Kenyan nationality because of birth. The judge said the man of course was not Kenyan by birth desite being born in Kenya and needs to apply for naturalisation despite having a Kenyan birth certificate. You will remenber many Kenyan Asians petitioned Uhuru to make them one of the 43 communitues of Kenya,hoping they would claim kenyan lineage if recognised.
Miguna on the other was not only born in Kenya, his hereditary is Kenyan. In the circumstances, the principle applicable to his case is acquisition of nationality by birth jus sangunis (by blood) and by jus soli (by soil or place of birth). That is he has transmissible lineage to Kenya by blood and soil that cannot be taken away.
Uhuru knew very well that if he allowed Miguna to be presented before a court he will lose as Miguna is a Kenyan.
Wacha mnazi, wee! Too much muratina is not good for you!
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Apr 5, 2018 14:59:16 GMT 3
Kamau, You are naïve on matters of law. The case you highlighted of Jisvin Chandra Narottam Hemraj Premji Pattni is nonsense. Judge Lenaola was dealing with a case against an Asian man born in Kenya to parents who were not Kenyan. He then claimed Kenyan nationality because of birth. The judge said the man of course was not Kenyan by birth desite being born in Kenya and needs to apply for naturalisation despite having a Kenyan birth certificate. You will remenber many Kenyan Asians petitioned Uhuru to make them one of the 43 communitues of Kenya,hoping they would claim kenyan lineage if recognised. Miguna on the other was not only born in Kenya, his hereditary is Kenyan. In the circumstances, the principle applicable to his case is acquisition of nationality by birth jus sangunis (by blood) and by jus soli (by soil or place of birth). That is he has transmissible lineage to Kenya by blood and soil that cannot be taken away. Uhuru knew very well that if he allowed Miguna to be presented before a court he will lose as Miguna is a Kenyan. Wacha mnazi, wee! Too much muratina is not good for you! Which is why I cannot trust you with a simple traffic offence - it could end up being a massive felony! You did not even read the ruling - which is in english which both of us can read!I suggest you read it in its entirety rather than think you can bamboozle me with latin! Fact: Pattni was born in Kenya Fact: He was naturalised as a Kenyan at the age of 11 as a child of an Indian that was naturalised as a Kenyan citizen Fact: He did not renounce his British citizenship at the age of 21 as required by the law then and automatically lost right to Kenya citizenship Fact: He illegally acquired a Kenyan ID card whilst still holding a British Passport Fact: He was in Kenya on an Entry permit Fact: Justice Lenaola said that the regaining of citizenship was a matter of law and not courts!!! Now replace this with Miguna: Fact: He was born in Kenya Fact: He emigrated to Canada and became a citizen of Canada Fact: Fact under the Kenyan law in force then, he automatically he lost Kenyan citizenship Fact: In 2008 he was given a Kenyan passport & an ID card without renouncing his Canadian citizenship as required by law. Fact: 2010 constitution allowed for dual citizenship and for those that had lost theirs by operation of law were allowed to regain by APPLICATION. So what is the difference between the two apart from one being Indian and the other one being Luo? The ruling is a few pages long and you do not need to be this lazy to read it - so there I have summarised it for you and probably educated you. Let me know what is not right and/or cannot be comprehended.
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Apr 6, 2018 13:01:29 GMT 3
Kamau,
Miguna has Kenyan parents. Section 89 of the old Constitution guaranteed any person born in Kenya after 11th December 1963 of Kenyan citizenship if at the date of his birth one of his parents was a citizen of Kenya. Miguna’s birth in Kenya, and the fact that both his parents were citizens of Kenya, he is entitled citizenship of Kenya.
Your argument is that by acquiring Canadian citizenship and thereby being issued with a Canadian passport, he had ceased to be a Kenyan citizen.
Does Section 97(1), (3) and (7) of the old Constitution deprive a Kenyan citizen by birth his citizenship upon acquiring nationality of another country?
This was the question that the Court in the judgment of Mahamud Muhumed Sirat v Ali Hassan Abdirahman & 2 others [2010] eKLR, High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, L. Kimaru (J) presiding, on the 22nd January 2010 posed to itself to determine the issue at hand.
This was case by a Kenyan Somali, born in Wajir who later acquired Australian citizenship and was subjected with deportation by your late friend and teacher Kajwan'g. Mahamud argued successfully that his Kenyan nationality cannot be distinguished when he gained another nationality. He gained Kenyan nationality on the basis of his descend and cannot be taken away by implication - he must have renounced his Kenyan nationality by writing which he did not do.
The court’s interpretation of sections 88, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95 and 97 of the old Constitution led it to the finding that the law prohibited persons of a particular category who were citizens of other countries at the time Kenya attained independence.
However, the law did not apply to citizens of Kenya who had acquired citizenship by virtue of their birth from acquiring citizenship of another country after attaining twenty-one years of age. Remember the latin words I used previously which you did not seem to understand!
Judge Kimaru remarked that the sections of the Constitution had to be read in the context by which they were enacted. He expounded that at the time Kenya attained independence, certain category of persons who qualified to acquire Kenyan citizenship, and having the option of retaining British citizenship, were being subtly encouraged to decide whether they desired to be citizens of the newly independent Kenya or be subject of the United Kingdom and colonies. Your Indian friend's case fall in this catergory.
Miguna therefore is a Kenyan national/citizen – a fact known very well by Uhuru leading to the subsequent denial of his day in court! Where do I send my bill, pwana?
|
|
|
Post by abdulmote on Apr 6, 2018 21:49:48 GMT 3
Sadik
Thank you for your effort. Typical of our "shithole" mentality, this was a fine example of where a valid judicial ruling, had no impact whatsoever in informing subsequent operational and other relevant administrative services to the user's of the same.
I remember when I had engaged the London High Commission on the dual citizenship issue and using J Kimaru's decision on the above case but they wouldn't have it.
Time and again they insisted on the other interpretation, which provided that one lost their citizenship, once they had acquired another (even if one did not have to denounce their Kenyan one in the process). Talk of a beating a dead horse!
Problem is, Miguna can be also be stupid at times.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Apr 8, 2018 12:23:37 GMT 3
Kamau, Miguna has Kenyan parents. Section 89 of the old Constitution guaranteed any person born in Kenya after 11th December 1963 of Kenyan citizenship if at the date of his birth one of his parents was a citizen of Kenya. Miguna’s birth in Kenya, and the fact that both his parents were citizens of Kenya, he is entitled citizenship of Kenya. Your argument is that by acquiring Canadian citizenship and thereby being issued with a Canadian passport, he had ceased to be a Kenyan citizen. Does Section 97(1), (3) and (7) of the old Constitution deprive a Kenyan citizen by birth his citizenship upon acquiring nationality of another country? My answer is YES. Here is an extract from the old constitution: The answer is yes. Here is an extract of the old constitution: (3) A citizen of Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be such a citizen if –
(a) having attained the age of twenty-one years, he acquires the citizenship of some country other than Kenya by voluntary act (other than marriage); or
having attained the age of twenty-one years, he otherwise acquires the citizenship of some country other than Kenya and has not, by the specified date, renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament. This was the question that the Court in the judgment of Mahamud Muhumed Sirat v Ali Hassan Abdirahman & 2 others [2010] eKLR, High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, L. Kimaru (J) presiding, on the 22nd January 2010 posed to itself to determine the issue at hand. This was case by a Kenyan Somali, born in Wajir who later acquired Australian citizenship and was subjected with deportation by your late friend and teacher Kajwan'g. Mahamud argued successfully that his Kenyan nationality cannot be distinguished when he gained another nationality. He gained Kenyan nationality on the basis of his descend and cannot be taken away by implication - he must have renounced his Kenyan nationality by writing which he did not do. The court’s interpretation of sections 88, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95 and 97 of the old Constitution led it to the finding that the law prohibited persons of a particular category who were citizens of other countries at the time Kenya attained independence. However, the law did not apply to citizens of Kenya who had acquired citizenship by virtue of their birth from acquiring citizenship of another country after attaining twenty-one years of age. Remember the latin words I used previously which you did not seem to understand! Judge Kimaru remarked that the sections of the Constitution had to be read in the context by which they were enacted. He expounded that at the time Kenya attained independence, certain category of persons who qualified to acquire Kenyan citizenship, and having the option of retaining British citizenship, were being subtly encouraged to decide whether they desired to be citizens of the newly independent Kenya or be subject of the United Kingdom and colonies. Your Indian friend's case fall in this catergory. Your is a rather narrow view as even the old Kenya Citizenship Act (repealed) did make provisions for people like Miguna. But for the sake of clarity, this is what Lenaola said in his ruling as regards dual citizenship: I need not emphasize the point that dual nationality was not recognized by the Repealed Constitution or any Statute enacted pursuant to Section 97 aforesaid and the Petitioner cannot but accept the lawful fact that by holding British nationality and a British passport and having neglected and/or refused to renounce that nationality by the date above, he had no legal capacity to acquire either a Kenyan identity card nor a Kenyan passport. I have therefore no doubt that the Kenyan identity card that he holds is invalid and he would be best advised to surrender it or face criminal sanction.
In any case a proper reading of Section 97(3)(a) and (b) clearly applies to Miguna as he took up his Canadian citizenship after attaining the age of 21 years. Unless you can tell me how these do not affect Miguna. Here is an Extract of Section 97 which I am restating for your reference: (3) A citizen of Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be such a citizen if— (a) having attained the age of twenty-one years, he acquires the citizenship of some country other than Kenya by voluntary act (other than marriage); or (b) having attained the age of twenty-one years, he otherwise acquires the citizenship of some country other than Kenya and has not, by the specified date, renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament
Remember this refers to "a citizen of Kenya" as defined in the constitution without any reference to how that citizenship is acquired!! Miguna therefore is a Kenyan national/citizen – a fact known very well by Uhuru leading to the subsequent denial of his day in court! Where do I send my bill, pwana? Are you still arguing???
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Apr 8, 2018 12:39:33 GMT 3
Sadik Thank you for your effort. Typical of our "shithole" mentality, this was a fine example of where a valid judicial ruling, had no impact whatsoever in informing subsequent operational and other relevant administrative services to the user's of the same. I remember when I had engaged the London High Commission on the dual citizenship issue and using J Kimaru's decision on the above case but they wouldn't have it. Time and again they insisted on the other interpretation, which provided that one lost their citizenship, once they had acquired another (even if one did not have to denounce their Kenyan one in the process). Talk of a beating a dead horse! Problem is, Miguna can be also be stupid at times. Abdulmote But the process under the KCIA makes it very simple to regain your Kenyan citizenship....?? That is the route you should take.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Apr 8, 2018 18:34:19 GMT 3
In my view, what Miguna is experiencing is not just. Yet it did not come looking for him. He went looking for it in a very unsubtle style.
One should not plot to reduce another to "absolutely nothing", and count on the other one to act all legally clean in response. What I am saying simply, what Miguna has been subjected to is not outright legal, yet Miguna is not an innocent victim.
There are elaborate requirements for Kenyans who acquired foreign citizenship prior to the promulgation of the current constitution to update their domestic citizenship. What is the consequence of not making such updates if one continues to claim the rights of Kenyan citizenship? When you are one person who is being addressed by such requirements but who has not cared, yet you unnecessarily plot to embarrass and even dehumanize someone to whom the machinery to exploit the legal uncertainty of what should happen to those not in compliance is in hand, what do you expect?
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Apr 9, 2018 8:48:24 GMT 3
In my view, what Miguna is experiencing is not just. Yet it did not come looking for him. He went looking for it in a very unsubtle style. One should not plot to reduce another to "absolutely nothing", and count on the other one to act all legally clean in response. What I am saying simply, what Miguna has been subjected to is not outright legal, yet Miguna is not an innocent victim. There are elaborate requirements for Kenyans who acquired foreign citizenship prior to the promulgation of the current constitution to update their domestic citizenship. What is the consequence of not making such updates if one continues to claim the rights of Kenyan citizenship? When you are one person who is being addressed by such requirements but who has not cared, yet you unnecessarily plot to embarrass and even dehumanize someone to whom the machinery to exploit the legal uncertainty of what should happen to those not in compliance is in hand, what do you expect? Jambo ManK Quick question: "If you were having a running tummy and you were standing next to a toilet but take the decision to soil your pants instead.....what should I call you?!"
|
|
|
Post by mank on Apr 11, 2018 8:08:35 GMT 3
In my view, what Miguna is experiencing is not just. Yet it did not come looking for him. He went looking for it in a very unsubtle style. One should not plot to reduce another to "absolutely nothing", and count on the other one to act all legally clean in response. What I am saying simply, what Miguna has been subjected to is not outright legal, yet Miguna is not an innocent victim. There are elaborate requirements for Kenyans who acquired foreign citizenship prior to the promulgation of the current constitution to update their domestic citizenship. What is the consequence of not making such updates if one continues to claim the rights of Kenyan citizenship? When you are one person who is being addressed by such requirements but who has not cared, yet you unnecessarily plot to embarrass and even dehumanize someone to whom the machinery to exploit the legal uncertainty of what should happen to those not in compliance is in hand, what do you expect? Jambo ManK Quick question: "If you were having a running tummy and you were standing next to a toilet but take the decision to soil your pants instead.....what should I call you?!" Sijambo bana, The crapper, I guess.
|
|