|
|
Post by mzee on Apr 12, 2010 16:15:03 GMT 3
Kamale,
Its not about Ruto or Raila and thats not our focus here. What we are trying to say is that WSR having killed the dreams of "his" people has embarked on a lying campaign never seen before. He even claims that there were no regions in the harmonised draft then turns around and claims that the same were deleted at Naivasha inspite of his protest. The truth is that he was paid handsomely to kill regions. Such lies will not be left unchallenged. Kamale you sound hurt that we are telling off WSR but I know that your heart is with Uhuru Kenyatta who has, to borrow from you, "shafted" WSR. WSR´s intention to create a wave like Railas 2005 earth shaking NO campaign will not materialise. What the kalenjins are now realising is that they have a bogus leaders in the Ruto brothers. Its one thing to talk about something someone has thought out for you than to think, straetgise and communicate your own thoughts. Ruto while campaigning for Raila was served with tactics and strategy, left alone the man lost it. He is even being shafted by the likes of UK who has always been shafted by others. By the way, why are you not cheering your homeboy UK? He did a fine Job, dont you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by politicalmaniac on Apr 12, 2010 18:49:15 GMT 3
I think Musalia and Co should tell us what went on behind the scenes and who did what. The 'juicy' story is beginning to trickle out. Bit by bit. I think it is a story of raw ambition, greed, political naivety and betrayal. But something else we have not discussed fully here are the motivations behind Ruto leading the ‘No’ vote. It is clear that this was not part of his plans and his responses appear sudden and uncoordinated. It is an expensive route, fraught with political perils. The first is that his party now has the perfect excuse to officially cast him aside, But perhaps ODM strategists think the timing is not ripe for such action. Is Ruto leading the ‘No’ campaign in order to be seen as a brave, fearless warrior? Others have suggested that Ruto is using this opportunity to test his mettle ahead of 2012. Folks, let's contemplate these Ruto dillemmas some more. How can he salvage what's left with some dignity? Very well put. Its clear that the 'shenanigans' refered to by mudamba jnr that occurred in Naivasha have to be brought into light! Some one here wanted the "Naivasha Hansard" and when I first read that sentence it did not strike me as Important. Now I think it is! ruto has to be exposed for the double speak he is engaging in! Are there any minutes? I have said many times here its NOT clear why ruto is leading the NO vote. His arguments are not yet distilled in a coherent flowing manner, even if it is about land reforms. What exactly is his beef with the clause? Also, why does he keep blaming the Prime Minister for the disappearance of the Kalenjin youth during the PEV? Why cant he ask the inept sloth from othaya whats going on since he is the 'boss' and the security docket is his? Wasnt ruto riding behind the ceremonial land rover just the other day? he could not whisper into the dude's ear, vijana wako wapi? Hasnt ruto been to SH many many times of late? What is more important on their agenda, other than the lives of those youth he keeps blaming R for their disappearance or continued incarceration? Its time the Prime Minister answered that question kinaga naga! Its a very damming allegation and ruto needs to be challenged on that! Why is the Prime Minister quiet on this very troubling issue and very potent propaganda tool?let him ask his friend the inept sloth mafian from othaya who stole the election and triggered violence in the first place !! Unlike phil, I am not of the view that ruto should be suspended from ODM officially. He has done so himself. He has virtually excommunicated himself and I applaud the patience of ODM, to let him be, despite very trying circumstances occasioned by ruto's rebellious attitude and childish selfish tantrums. ODM wont be ruto's vehicle to political martyrdom! As for 2012, take it from me. ruto aint going no where. He has burnt too many bridges. In some sections of the country he is utterly reviled, just as his mentor kipkorios was, in 2002. Go to Central Province and areas populated by the diaspora from this region. As mzee put it above, after jomo jnr gored ruto back with a sharp panga, jomo jnr is now laughing all the way to kiambu juja! He has lost the trust of Nyanzans and Westerners. Wa Costi led by Balala have seemingly washed their hands and told him to take a hike. Judas KM backyard dont need him. Kwani ame wafanyia nini? He wont even be able to pull a Judas KM contorted move and get into a position of power. When ruto was in good standing in the bowels of ODM, his eloquence on the trail, his grit, and what seemed to be his intelligence, served him very well. But alas, after getting advice from inept, confused wakilis, some who we know here very well, some who we have read about, ruto seemed to have decided to walk and jump into the abyss of nothingness. |
|
|
|
Post by tactician on Apr 12, 2010 19:42:21 GMT 3
tactician,You guys in the Ruto camp should talk to him. He is in a terrible political situation. Read what my friend Kibisu Kabatesi (KK as we used to call him) is saying. Ruto's No campaign will flop everywhere in the country. He sold his party and his people in Naivasha and got nothing for it. The man is in dire straits politically. I have no idea who his advisers are but surely the Kuttunys are not doing him that much good. Isaac is already distraught. He was begging Cardinal Njue to lead a NO campaign to the Draft he and his namesake minted in Naivasha. How pathetic is that! The Rutos had an opportunity of a lifetime in Naivasha. A hundred years from now their great grand kids would point out with pride that it was their great grand dads who framed the nation's constitution. Instead just weeks from the Naivasha debacle the Rutos are completely ashamed of what they created in Naivasha. Why? This is not about the "Raila camp", my friend. This is about your buddy Ruto. He is falling apart rather badly. Everywhere. That is the focus of this thread. adongo Adongo, First, what do you mean when you say "you guys in the ruto camp"? FYI, i am not a Ruto follower and do not envision being one. Secondly, I am voting FOR this Katiba To make it clear to you, I am voting YES to this katiba. I hope that clears your misconceptions. And here is why I am voting for YES: One - We shall have a preseidential system instead of the parliamentary system as advocated by ODM before they went to Naivasha (see ODM Deputy Party Leaders' Statement before going to Naivasha) Two - We shall have a unitary state instead of the three tier majimbo systen which ODM advocated for as its "irreducible minimum" (see ODM statement by its Secretary Gen before and during the Kabete retreat) Three - We shall have more equal constituenceis i.e.one man one vote...thus reducing the present inequalities. Given these strategic and structural wins, why should I reject the draft? Ruto and his camp can jump down the Kerio Valley if they want to but this is what we all along wanted That is to dismantle the Bomas Draft which was centered on the two main pillars of: - a parliamentary system, and - a majimbo state. In short, we in PNU have achieved what we always wanted. Not to mention that we now got Raila leading the YES campaign....how much sweeter can it be? Whereas had it been Uhuru or Kibaki or Karua etc leading the YES campaign, you can bet that the NO vote would prevail in light of the structural equalities that it guarantees PNU supporters and dismantles the existing inequalities that the present katiba gives ODM supporters. To recap: - I am excited at the attributes of the proposed Katiba, and - I am exhilirated that Raila is leading the YES campaign, for it reduces the anti-kikuyuism that would have been present if a politician from central kenya had led the campaign. this is in light of the embedded equalisation of rights as enumerated above. I hope this clears you misconceptions |
|
|
|
Post by mzee on Apr 13, 2010 9:48:21 GMT 3
Ruto and Kuttuny will find themselves standing alone on this. Everybody seem to be running away from WSR. Coast MP´s have jumped ship www.standardmedia.co.ke/news/InsidePage.php?id=2000007563&cid=159&story=We are not in Ruto’s camp, Coast MPs say Coast MPs have vowed to drum up support for the Proposed Constitution, saying the document is better than the current law. The leaders distanced themselves from Agriculture Minister William Ruto’s ‘No’ team, claiming the move would take Kenya a step backward in the quest for reforms. Environment Assistant Minister Ramadhan Kajembe (Changamwe), his Lands counterpart Gonzi Rai (Kinango) and MPs Ben Gunda (Bahari), Shakilla Abdalla (nominated) and Masoud Mwahima of Likoni said the current Constitution should not be retained. Mr Kajembe said there was no reason to vote ‘No’ since the proposed counties would fill the place of ‘majimbo’, which Coast Province has been clamouring for. Mr Gunda said land matters would be adequately addressed by the National Land Policy, whose regulations are being formulated. Status quo "The Proposed Constitution is better than the current one and rejecting it would retain the status quo. We have an opportunity to have a new order and we must not lose it," Gunda said. Shakilla said Kenyans have clamoured for a new law for many years. "We have to get a new law and make amendments later. The 47 counties provided for makes the proposed document even much better than the current Constitution," she said. Mr Mwahima also distanced himself from the ‘No’ campaign team. He said he was with his party leader Raila Odinga in the ‘Yes’ campaign team. He denied ever enjoying links with Ruto’s camp. Mr Rai vowed to campaign vigorously for the passage of the document as long as Attorney General Amos Wako did not make any changes. Mwahima also expressed support for the new law. "The people branding me as a supporter of Ruto are being malicious," he said. Speaking to The Standard from Western Province via the telephone, Mwahima said his detractors are behind the claims. "I am with President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga in ensuring the proposed law is passed as it is," said Mwahima. He said he would launch a ‘Yes’ campaign in Likoni to ensure his constituents were not left behind. At the same time, Cabinet Minister Amason Kingi denied claims he was in Ruto’s ‘No’ campaign team. "I am not in Ruto’s camp at all and those claiming so have got it all wrong," said Kingi. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 13, 2010 9:52:02 GMT 3
All these MPs are jumping into the YES bandwagon because of the powerful message emanating from the grassroot. Kenyans are fatigued and are ready to pass this new constitution. No one wants to take another 50 years to fight for another round of reforms. It has been a long drawn struggle which has seen many people lose their lives. MPs are merely following the demands of their constituents. Look at how Jirongo (who defected to NO merely because ODM (read Raila and Mudavadi) are supporting YES and he wants to be seen to be opposing them. Jirongo's No Vote Advice Rejected
Date: Mon 12th April 2010
Mediahouse: The Star
Page: 8
BY HILTON OTENYO
MP Cyrus Jirongo's. launch of a No campaign in his constituency came to a dead end yesterday. Jirongo failed to convince representatives of Lugari teachers that they should oppose the proposed constitution.
Some told him to his face that they will vote for it in the referendum. "You and your fellow MPs had a chance during the two retreats to amend the draft. What are you telling us now? We have already made up our minds to vote Yes," said an angry teacher. Last week Jirongo joined' an alliance of MPs opposing the draft.
The alliance led by minister William Ruto said it will begin a campaign against the draft across the country. Yesterday, the teachers holding their annual general meeting at the Lumakanda Teachers Advisory Hall accused him and other MPs of misleading wananchi. Jirongo unsuccessfully pleaded with the teachers to agree that the draft is flawed and that it should be amended.
He cited the clause on land which he' said will "render all title deeds null and void" and that the proposed National Land Commission will redistribute land afresh. His explanation was dismissed by the teachers. 'The proposed constitution recommends the creation of the commission whose functions will, be to manage public land on behalf of the national and county governments.
It does not propose nullifying the existing title deeds. Realisiilg he was not going to get their support, Jirongo said he will board the next plane out of the country if the proposed constitution is passed because it is likely to set the country "on fire".
"I will leave the country immediately if the proposed law is passed at the referendum in its current state because the country will be on fire," said Jirongo. He said though he initially supported the proposed supreme law, he changed his mind after realising it will be difficult to amend in future. He was the only MP from Western province among 27 others who were paraded last, week by Agriculture Minister William Ruto as members of the No campaign team.
Jirongo claimed some of the MPs from the Coast and Rift Valley had been arm-twisted into supporting the proposed constitution even though they wanted to introduce federalism and amend clauses on land. "Our brothers from the Coast are now supporting the entire draft because of retention of the Kadhi's courts," he said. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Apr 13, 2010 16:17:48 GMT 3
Kamale,The reason the constitutional battle (soon to be won) has taken this long is because of political parties and politicians. Kibaki promised Kenyans a new constitution in 100 days after a Narc victory which happened in Dec 2002. The same Kibaki as president did everything in his power to sabotage that very new constitution and ended up in a humiliating defeat in the 2005 referendum. Why did he and is allies do that? You ask them. They will tell you it was because of politics and political interests. Should Ruto be allowed to die (politically) as you ask with the NO position? That is his choice. When you make a bed, sometimes you have to take a nap on them. Fair enough. Isn't it? adongo I constantly get accused of dragging in Raila, but it seems Kibaki suffers similar fate! |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Apr 13, 2010 16:23:59 GMT 3
Kamale,Its not about Ruto or Raila and thats not our focus here. What we are trying to say is that WSR having killed the dreams of "his" people has embarked on a lying campaign never seen before. He even claims that there were no regions in the harmonised draft then turns around and claims that the same were deleted at Naivasha inspite of his protest. The truth is that he was paid handsomely to kill regions. Such lies will not be left unchallenged. Kamale you sound hurt that we are telling off WSR but I know that your heart is with Uhuru Kenyatta who has, to borrow from you, "shafted" WSR. WSR´s intention to create a wave like Railas 2005 earth shaking NO campaign will not materialise. What the kalenjins are now realising is that they have a bogus leaders in the Ruto brothers. Its one thing to talk about something someone has thought out for you than to think, straetgise and communicate your own thoughts. Ruto while campaigning for Raila was served with tactics and strategy, left alone the man lost it. He is even being shafted by the likes of UK who has always been shafted by others. By the way, why are you not cheering your homeboy UK? He did a fine Job, dont you think? If I get you right, if these people were cheated by Ruto and they have ended being "shafted" should they still vote for a document that does not include their wishes? So Kamale is gikuyu and Uhuru is his homeboy because they are both gikuyus....and when the L word is mentioned here there are those that go ballistic!!! |
|
|
|
Post by tiskie on Apr 13, 2010 16:59:00 GMT 3
Do I recall a story in the Standard which seemed to suggest that all that went on at Naivasha was the ODM plan which was planned in a manner to hoodwink PNU and we had some people cheering here? Perhaps it is something I never read about! Very funny? as Kenyans are aware the Naivasha saga was controlled by Uhuru & Co aka "PNU" 'KKK" PDM" who were in a romantic relationship with Ruto in his own individual capacity after he ditched ODM.. it is funny now the Propaganda and Lies are out in full force ati now it was ODM 's plan how hilarious ;D ;D Kenyans are tooo intelligent to be hoodwinked.. it ain't going to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Apr 13, 2010 19:10:10 GMT 3
tactician,You guys in the Ruto camp should talk to him. He is in a terrible political situation. Read what my friend Kibisu Kabatesi (KK as we used to call him) is saying. Ruto's No campaign will flop everywhere in the country. He sold his party and his people in Naivasha and got nothing for it. The man is in dire straits politically. I have no idea who his advisers are but surely the Kuttunys are not doing him that much good. Isaac is already distraught. He was begging Cardinal Njue to lead a NO campaign to the Draft he and his namesake minted in Naivasha. How pathetic is that! The Rutos had an opportunity of a lifetime in Naivasha. A hundred years from now their great grand kids would point out with pride that it was their great grand dads who framed the nation's constitution. Instead just weeks from the Naivasha debacle the Rutos are completely ashamed of what they created in Naivasha. Why? This is not about the "Raila camp", my friend. This is about your buddy Ruto. He is falling apart rather badly. Everywhere. That is the focus of this thread. adongo Adongo, First, what do you mean when you say "you guys in the ruto camp"? FYI, i am not a Ruto follower and do not envision being one. Secondly, I am voting FOR this Katiba To make it clear to you, I am voting YES to this katiba. I hope that clears your misconceptions. And here is why I am voting for YES: One - We shall have a preseidential system instead of the parliamentary system as advocated by ODM before they went to Naivasha (see ODM Deputy Party Leaders' Statement before going to Naivasha) Two - We shall have a unitary state instead of the three tier majimbo systen which ODM advocated for as its "irreducible minimum" (see ODM statement by its Secretary Gen before and during the Kabete retreat) Three - We shall have more equal constituenceis i.e.one man one vote...thus reducing the present inequalities. Given these strategic and structural wins, why should I reject the draft? Ruto and his camp can jump down the Kerio Valley if they want to but this is what we all along wanted That is to dismantle the Bomas Draft which was centered on the two main pillars of: - a parliamentary system, and - a majimbo state. In short, we in PNU have achieved what we always wanted. Not to mention that we now got Raila leading the YES campaign....how much sweeter can it be? Whereas had it been Uhuru or Kibaki or Karua etc leading the YES campaign, you can bet that the NO vote would prevail in light of the structural equalities that it guarantees PNU supporters and dismantles the existing inequalities that the present katiba gives ODM supporters. To recap: - I am excited at the attributes of the proposed Katiba, and - I am exhilirated that Raila is leading the YES campaign, for it reduces the anti-kikuyuism that would have been present if a politician from central kenya had led the campaign. this is in light of the embedded equalisation of rights as enumerated above. I hope this clears you misconceptions I am glad you have abandoned, as I thought you will, your earlier bravado on how Ruto and Uhuru will tear the Draft one more time. I thought you guys were particularly mad with the transition clause. Reality has set in. That is a good thing. As for the presidency I have always advocated a directly elected executive. I was mortified of the thought of these crazy M.Ps being the ones to determine who becomes an executive. Imagine the Rutos being in that position with his tireless flip flops. We would have a new PM every week. So in reality I don't care what the directly elected executive is called. Like I have said many times I wanted a directly elected PM answerable to the public through bunge. Others wanted a King based at State House. They got their king. I think what is really going to shock PNU supporters like you is that there is no guarantee that the president will be from PNU. In fact right now it looks very unlikely. In fact the next big war in PNU is how to choose a candidate. For a party whose only manifesto and political program was "Mwai Kibaki" they are going to have a nightmare. That is their problem. As for devolution I think many ODM supporters are happy with what they have. Folks have their jimbos and will have quite some resources to develop them. That is what ODM has fought for a long time. In fact the very concept is what BOMAS was all about. So the myth about "dismantling" BOMAS is nonsense but if it makes you fellas happy then that is progress. PNU hates the idea of resources being removed from the centre where they imagined they will always be in charge. I think at this stage with all sorts of warlords everywhere having 8 or so regions although a good idea could be problematic. Only Nairobi got burned. They will get 15% like everybody else as one county. That is not very smart. Nairobi should have been divided into three zones for purposes of devolution and equity in resource allocation. But that is history now. But the strong senate takes care of other regional balance issues just as envisioned in the BOMAS Draft. In fact the entire DNA of the new Draft has BOMAS all over it. The human rights issues captured in the Bill of rights, the Senate, Land issues which is making people like moi cry. If you think the PNU big land grabbers are happy about the trajectory for dealing with land ownership and use in this Draft you are dreaming. They hate it but there is nothing they can do. I don't where you get the one man one vote idea. It is always one man/woman one vote. The Boundaries commission refused to join the party in Naivasha. They are still preparing their report. As many have pointed out there will be no major changes in terms of constituency. All parts of the country will get a few new constituencies with no significant change in balance of the electorate. One of the trouble with PNU is there focus has never been on what they can create and build on but rather how to fight what they perceive as ODM ideas. It is like the Republic Party in the US. It always how do we fight the other guys ideas. That is the mentality you expose in your post. As for Raila leading the YES campaign, NO I am sorry to disappoint you but he is not leading for PNU as you imagine. He is leading it because it embraces a lot of things the man has spent his life fighting for. He is leading it because Kenyans like it. He is leading it because he is the PM of the republic of Kenya. Obsessing with "anti-Kikuyuism" is refusing to deal with the reality that Kenya is changing everyday and right now there is a sense of tolerance and nationhood which is good. Those who want to poison it will not succeed. So yeah vote for the katiba and then let's go and compete in the political arena come 2012 and may the best team win. adongo |
|
|
|
Post by politicalmaniac on Apr 13, 2010 22:53:24 GMT 3
Its amazing (well not so actually, being the political chameleons they are) how the Panuistas made an about turn over the issue of an imperial President.
When kipkorios reigned they went all ha ha ha hooo hooo hooo hoi hoi hoi eti the Presidency was way too powerful.
Si kina kiraitu and martha were always foaming in the mouth when articulating this argument?
Once the sloth went in that argument disappeared.
Will they resurrect this argument when the current Prime Minister ascends to the throne? Then he starts making decisions they disagree with and have no recourse to reverse them per se?
The balkanization into very small regions or counties is something I dont like about the draft.
may be it will bring peace, I dont know. Viability will be the key issue
|
|
|
|
Post by tactician on Apr 14, 2010 9:23:32 GMT 3
Adongo, First, what do you mean when you say "you guys in the ruto camp"? FYI, i am not a Ruto follower and do not envision being one. Secondly, I am voting FOR this Katiba To make it clear to you, I am voting YES to this katiba. I hope that clears your misconceptions. And here is why I am voting for YES: One - We shall have a preseidential system instead of the parliamentary system as advocated by ODM before they went to Naivasha (see ODM Deputy Party Leaders' Statement before going to Naivasha) Two - We shall have a unitary state instead of the three tier majimbo systen which ODM advocated for as its "irreducible minimum" (see ODM statement by its Secretary Gen before and during the Kabete retreat) Three - We shall have more equal constituenceis i.e.one man one vote...thus reducing the present inequalities. Given these strategic and structural wins, why should I reject the draft? Ruto and his camp can jump down the Kerio Valley if they want to but this is what we all along wanted That is to dismantle the Bomas Draft which was centered on the two main pillars of: - a parliamentary system, and - a majimbo state. In short, we in PNU have achieved what we always wanted. Not to mention that we now got Raila leading the YES campaign....how much sweeter can it be? Whereas had it been Uhuru or Kibaki or Karua etc leading the YES campaign, you can bet that the NO vote would prevail in light of the structural equalities that it guarantees PNU supporters and dismantles the existing inequalities that the present katiba gives ODM supporters. To recap: - I am excited at the attributes of the proposed Katiba, and - I am exhilirated that Raila is leading the YES campaign, for it reduces the anti-kikuyuism that would have been present if a politician from central kenya had led the campaign. this is in light of the embedded equalisation of rights as enumerated above. I hope this clears you misconceptions I am glad you have abandoned, as I thought you will, your earlier bravado on how Ruto and Uhuru will tear the Draft one more time. I thought you guys were particularly mad with the transition clause. Reality has set in. That is a good thing. As for the presidency I have always advocated a directly elected executive. I was mortified of the thought of these crazy M.Ps being the ones to determine who becomes an executive. Imagine the Rutos being in that position with his tireless flip flops. We would have a new PM every week. So in reality I don't care what the directly elected executive is called. Like I have said many times I wanted a directly elected PM answerable to the public through bunge. Others wanted a King based at State House. They got their king. I think what is really going to shock PNU supporters like you is that there is no guarantee that the president will be from PNU. In fact right now it looks very unlikely. In fact the next big war in PNU is how to choose a candidate. For a party whose only manifesto and political program was "Mwai Kibaki" they are going to have a nightmare. That is their problem. As for devolution I think many ODM supporters are happy with what they have. Folks have their jimbos and will have quite some resources to develop them. That is what ODM has fought for a long time. In fact the very concept is what BOMAS was all about. So the myth about "dismantling" BOMAS is nonsense but if it makes you fellas happy then that is progress. PNU hates the idea of resources being removed from the centre where they imagined they will always be in charge. I think at this stage with all sorts of warlords everywhere having 8 or so regions although a good idea could be problematic. Only Nairobi got burned. They will get 15% like everybody else as one county. That is not very smart. Nairobi should have been divided into three zones for purposes of devolution and equity in resource allocation. But that is history now. But the strong senate takes care of other regional balance issues just as envisioned in the BOMAS Draft. In fact the entire DNA of the new Draft has BOMAS all over it. The human rights issues captured in the Bill of rights, the Senate, Land issues which is making people like moi cry. If you think the PNU big land grabbers are happy about the trajectory for dealing with land ownership and use in this Draft you are dreaming. They hate it but there is nothing they can do. I don't where you get the one man one vote idea. It is always one man/woman one vote. The Boundaries commission refused to join the party in Naivasha. They are still preparing their report. As many have pointed out there will be no major changes in terms of constituency. All parts of the country will get a few new constituencies with no significant change in balance of the electorate. One of the trouble with PNU is there focus has never been on what they can create and build on but rather how to fight what they perceive as ODM ideas. It is like the Republic Party in the US. It always how do we fight the other guys ideas. That is the mentality you expose in your post. As for Raila leading the YES campaign, NO I am sorry to disappoint you but he is not leading for PNU as you imagine. He is leading it because it embraces a lot of things the man has spent his life fighting for. He is leading it because Kenyans like it. He is leading it because he is the PM of the republic of Kenya. Obsessing with "anti-Kikuyuism" is refusing to deal with the reality that Kenya is changing everyday and right now there is a sense of tolerance and nationhood which is good. Those who want to poison it will not succeed. So yeah vote for the katiba and then let's go and compete in the political arena come 2012 and may the best team win. adongo Adongo, lemme address the one man one vote principle for it seems to have escaped u.... right now, some votes have more weight than others - and you can read the kriegler report for yourself. And ODM was dead set against introducing setting the principle of equality of votes according to population - they wanted other ideas of usind land etc as if acres vote in an election. I know ODM never loses so if you wanna say that it won by having 80 extra constituencies - then it won. I get your point that you supported a directly elected president. But you gotta admit that ODM was dead set against that. They wanted a parliamentary system ala Bomas- or dyu want me to post the links to remind you? And they wanted a parliamentary system accompanied by unequal constituencies - institutionalised gerrymandering if u like big words! And yes I know that Raila is not leading the YES for the PNU.... Regarding 2012, whether raila wins or not is not the question. He may as well win the election and even get a second term - but he shall not live in state house forever! This katiba, if passed, will outlive Raila....and the democratic rights that it restores to PNU supporters will outlive Raila. So well I say, let Raila win 2012 and 2017. But we shall have equal weight of votes, no majimbo and a presidential system to last a generation. Regarding the senate, i'm sorry but apparently you do not get the difference between a federal/majimbo system and a unitary system. In a federal/majimbo state, ala the US, the original power of the country lies with the regions. To mean that the regions exist first before the federal state exist. In other words, the regions are the parents and the federal state is the child. Accordingly, the federal state/central govt cannot override the regional govts. And this is why in the US all of the executive appointments are cleared thru the senate as it represents the regions. In fact the senate is the stronger of the two houses in the US recognising that the central govt cannot reign roughshod over regions. Also, all constitutional amendments have to be ratified by a super majority of regions/states for them to take effect. Indeed, it is only in the mid 1900's that the central govt in US started to extend its central govt mandate thru intepretations of the Inter State Commerce Act by the Supreme Court. To give this debate a modern touch, I am aware that state/region AGs are already in court challenging the legitimacy of the recently passed health care bill by Obama on the grounds that it overeaches the power of the central govt over the states/jimbos. In the bomas draft, you had a similar situation whereby the jimbos, if it came to a supreme court ruling, would have been adjudged to have the original powers of the republic seeing that the senate as envisioned by bomas had exclusive powers to: - approve/disapprove nominations/appointments by the central govt -make legislation, in conjunction with the lower house, regarding ALL matters etc In the proposed Katiba, we have a unitary state a la the UK, where the national assembly will have more powers than the senate. In a unitary state, the original powers lie with the central govt which then devolves these powers away from the center and to the regions. So to speak, the center is the parent and the regions are the children. Accordingly, the children cannot have powers over the parent - hence the senate, which represents the children, is made weaker than than the center i.e. the national assembly which is the parent. That's why u see in the proposed katiba that appointments by the national executive/central govt are cleared by the national assembly and NOT the senate. Also, the senate has NO say in legislation which does not affect regions directly. And even in matters that the senate has a say, the national assembly can override with a two thirds majority. This is hwy i aver that the Bomas katiba and the proposed katiba are based on different principles. Bomas was based on a federal system while the proposed katiba is based on a unitary system. And the fingerprints of each are all over as seen by the evidence I have adduced above. To summarise, what we had in the Bomas draft was a federal/majimbo system. What we have in the proposed katiba is a devolved govt - where the original wielder of power, the centre, has devolved powers to the regions. ebuff said - Bed |
|
|
|
Post by tactician on Apr 14, 2010 9:47:26 GMT 3
Adongo,
And regards transition, please forget the commentaries by the usual suspects and read the transition clause in the proposed katiba keeping in mind the changes made in naivasha.
We have been through this before but ur bravado makes me repeat!
Before Naivasha, the transition clause required the president to consult the PM on all nominations/appointments he made during the transition period.
At naivasha, the PSC amended the transition clause to read that the president shall consult the PM on all nominations/appointments he makes, in accordance with the national accord.
The CoE accepted this amendment and it passed in bunge.
As it now reads, the president shall consult the PM only on those appointments/nominations that the national accord requires him to consult the PM.
And the national accord requires him to consult only on the appointments of ministers. Period.
So when it comes to appointments of Chief Justice, AG, police comm etc, do not expect any input from PM....
If in doubt, the supreme court is there to rule upon it. just like right now the PM can go to the high court to demand that Kibaki consult him when he appoints any judges etc...or indeed to have the high court declare that he has supervisory powers to remove ruto et al from the cabinet without the president's consent.
I say it again, read for yourself what the transition clause as it was before the PSC meeting at Naivasha and as they amended it then.
And tell me what effect the amendment has on the transition clauses.
|
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Apr 14, 2010 10:28:48 GMT 3
Before Naivasha, the transition clause required the president to consult the PM on all nominations/appointments he made during the transition period. At naivasha, the PSC amended the transition clause to read that the president shall consult the PM on all nominations/appointments he makes, in accordance with the national accord.The CoE accepted this amendment and it passed in bunge. As it now reads, the president shall consult the PM only on those appointments/nominations that the national accord requires him to consult the PM. And the national accord requires him to consult only on the appointments of ministers. Period. So when it comes to appointments of Chief Justice, AG, police comm etc, do not expect any input from PM.... kindly familiarise yourself with the Sixth Schedule == Chief Justice 24. (1) The Chief Justice in office immediately before the effective date shall, within six months after the effective date, vacate office and may choose either— (a) to retire from the judiciary; or (b) subject to the process of vetting under section 23, to continue to serve on the Court of Appeal. (2) A new Chief Justice shall be appointed by the President, subject to the National Accord and Reconciliation Act, and after consultation with the Prime Minister and with the approval of the National Assembly.(3) Subsection (2) also applies if there are further vacancies in the office of Chief Justice before the first general elections under this Constitution. == == New appointments 29. (1) The process of appointment of persons to fill vacancies arising in consequence of the coming into force of this Constitution shall begin on the effective date and be finalised within one year. 210 (2) Unless this Schedule prescribes otherwise, when this Constitution requires an appointment to be made by the President with the approval of the National Assembly, until after the first elections under this Constitution, the President shall, subject to the National Accord and Reconciliation Act, appoint a person after consultation with the Prime Minister and with the approval of the National Assembly.== |
|
|
|
Post by tactician on Apr 14, 2010 10:42:32 GMT 3
Before Naivasha, the transition clause required the president to consult the PM on all nominations/appointments he made during the transition period. At naivasha, the PSC amended the transition clause to read that the president shall consult the PM on all nominations/appointments he makes, in accordance with the national accord.The CoE accepted this amendment and it passed in bunge. As it now reads, the president shall consult the PM only on those appointments/nominations that the national accord requires him to consult the PM. And the national accord requires him to consult only on the appointments of ministers. Period. So when it comes to appointments of Chief Justice, AG, police comm etc, do not expect any input from PM.... kindly familiarise yourself with the Sixth Schedule == Chief Justice 24. (1) The Chief Justice in office immediately before the effective date shall, within six months after the effective date, vacate office and may choose either— (a) to retire from the judiciary; or (b) subject to the process of vetting under section 23, to continue to serve on the Court of Appeal. (2) A new Chief Justice shall be appointed by the President, subject to the National Accord and Reconciliation Act, and after consultation with the Prime Minister and with the approval of the National Assembly.(3) Subsection (2) also applies if there are further vacancies in the office of Chief Justice before the first general elections under this Constitution. == == New appointments 29. (1) The process of appointment of persons to fill vacancies arising in consequence of the coming into force of this Constitution shall begin on the effective date and be finalised within one year. 210 (2) Unless this Schedule prescribes otherwise, when this Constitution requires an appointment to be made by the President with the approval of the National Assembly, until after the first elections under this Constitution, the President shall, subject to the National Accord and Reconciliation Act, appoint a person after consultation with the Prime Minister and with the approval of the National Assembly.== You are only confirming what I said above. Before the PSC retreat at Naivasha, the words "subject to the National Accord and Reconciliation Act" were absent. It is PSC which included this clause i.e. "subject to the National Accord and Reconciliation Act" in the clauses that you have quoted. The CoE accepted this amendments and published it as it you noq quote it. So the question I want to put to you and Adongo is: - What effect did adding the words "subject to the National Accord and Reconciliation Act" have on these transition clauses? Or are you saying that these amendments had no effect at all? |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 14, 2010 11:06:41 GMT 3
Tactician/tnk, I must admit I am thoroughly enjoying reading your attempt at dissecting the new proposed katiba. On a point of correction however, I do not agree with this statement. I have with me a copy of the final PSC report (13 pages) from Naivasha on official bunger letter-head, and it is signed by the Chairman Hon Abdikadir Mohammed. (I can email it to you if you so wish). These are the PSC recommendations on the transition chapter: 4.19 Chapter Nineteen: Transitional and Consequential Provisions
The amendments made under this section are generally consistent with the changes that have been made in the preceding chapters of the Harmonized Draft Constitution. The major recommendations include-
1. The deletion of Oath of Office of the Prime Minister at Section 90 of the Third Schedule.
2. The reduction of time period within which Parliament provide for legislations, at Section 306 (1) of the fifth schedule, relating to-
a) Legislation on citizenship
b) Legislation on Elections
c) Establishment of Independent Boundaries Commission
d) Membership of the Senate and National Assembly
e) Procedure of Presidential election
f) All legislations for the establishment and operation of devolved government
g) Relationship between governments at different levels.
3. Removal of Sections 5 (1)-(3) of the Sixth Schedule with reference to Commission on the Implementation of the Constitution since implementing the Constitution rest nor with parliament.
4. The removal of Sections 5 (5) – (9) relating to Commission on Implementation of Constitution (CIC) and the establishment of a Parliamentary select Committee on Implementation thereof within one month of the effective date.
5. Retention of the Provincial Administration by removal of Sections16 (1) – (5) and replaced with the words “Provincial Administration will be retained and restructured to take into account the provision of this Constitution’.
6. Removal of Sections 36 and 37 of Part 5 (Miscellaneous). The Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC) has been established to address the provisions of these Sections.
Unless we are reading two different reports, there is absolutely no such thing as:
|
|
|
|
Post by tactician on Apr 14, 2010 13:03:43 GMT 3
Tactician/tnk, I must admit I am thoroughly enjoying reading your attempt at dissecting the new proposed katiba. On a point of correction however, I do not agree with this statement. I have with me a copy of the final PSC report (13 pages) from Naivasha on official bunger letter-head, and it is signed by the Chairman Hon Abdikadir Mohammed. (I can email it to you if you so wish). These are the PSC recommendations on the transition chapter: 4.19 Chapter Nineteen: Transitional and Consequential Provisions
The amendments made under this section are generally consistent with the changes that have been made in the preceding chapters of the Harmonized Draft Constitution. The major recommendations include-
1. The deletion of Oath of Office of the Prime Minister at Section 90 of the Third Schedule.
2. The reduction of time period within which Parliament provide for legislations, at Section 306 (1) of the fifth schedule, relating to-
a) Legislation on citizenship
b) Legislation on Elections
c) Establishment of Independent Boundaries Commission
d) Membership of the Senate and National Assembly
e) Procedure of Presidential election
f) All legislations for the establishment and operation of devolved government
g) Relationship between governments at different levels.
3. Removal of Sections 5 (1)-(3) of the Sixth Schedule with reference to Commission on the Implementation of the Constitution since implementing the Constitution rest nor with parliament.
4. The removal of Sections 5 (5) – (9) relating to Commission on Implementation of Constitution (CIC) and the establishment of a Parliamentary select Committee on Implementation thereof within one month of the effective date.
5. Retention of the Provincial Administration by removal of Sections16 (1) – (5) and replaced with the words “Provincial Administration will be retained and restructured to take into account the provision of this Constitution’.
6. Removal of Sections 36 and 37 of Part 5 (Miscellaneous). The Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC) has been established to address the provisions of these Sections.
Unless we are reading two different reports, there is absolutely no such thing as: Phil, Thanks for the comments. Regarding the report by the PSC, bear in mind that the PSC report was quite shallow given the time they had. So i understand why you disagree as the amendments to the transition clauses are not quoted in the report. To address this shortcoming, I will refer you to the katiba as it was before Naivasha (Revised Harmonised Draft Constitution - RHDC) and the proposed katiba i.e after naivasha & bunge (Proposed Constitution). For ease of reference, I will quote the relevant transition clauses in the sixth schedule of both and point out the pages: Here we go - first let us look at the RHDC as drafted by CoE and passed to the PSC i.e. pre-naivasha. [bKATIBA PRE-NAIVASHA (RHDC)[/b] can be found at: www.coekenya.go.ke/images/stories/Resources/the_revised_harmonised_draft_constitution_of_kenya.pdfThe Sixth Schedule, Article 12 (page 194) provided the following on the executive: (1) The National Accord and Reconciliation Act and the provisions of the old Constitution concerning the executive remain in force until the final announcement of all the results of the first elections for the National Assembly under this Constitution.
(2)The provisions of the old Constitution that remain in force under subsection (1) are Articles 4 to 29 but any appointment or dismissal to be made by the President under the old Constitution must be made by the President with the agreement of the Prime Minister.This enhanced the powers of the PM as it requires consultation and concurrence on ANY appointment. Regarding the Chief Justice, Article 22 of the Sixth Schedule (p200) provided that:- (3) The President, the Prime Minister and the Judicial Service Commission must agree to the person who the President appoints as Chief Justice.This is self explanatory. Furthermore, the RHDC also provided for the following in Article 31 of the Sixth Schedule (p203) New appointments
31. (1) The process of appointment of persons to fill vacancies arising in consequence of the coming into force of this Constitution shall begin on the effective date and be finalised within one year.
(2) Unless this Schedule prescribes otherwise, when this Constitution requires an appointment to be made by the State President with the approval of the National Assembly or Senate, until after the first elections under this Constitution, the President shall appoint a person nominated by the Prime Minister with the
concurrence of the President and approved by the National Assembly[/i
This section applies to the appointment of a new AG cos the previous article (article 32) provided that:
the Attorney-General and the Auditor-General shall continue in office for a period of no more than twelve months after the effective date and new persons shall be appointed to those offices under this Constitution.
Clearly, the PM was in the driving seat on this one.
These were the transitional provisions contained in the RHDC draft submitted by CoE to the PSC before they went to Naivasha.
Let us now look at the Proposed Katiba, which was the product of amendments in Naivasha.
PROPOSED KATIBA
can be found at www.coekenya.go.ke/images/stories/Resources/proposed_constitution_submitted_to_psc_by_coe_23_02_2010.pdf
While the RHDC required concurrence between the President, PM and JSC regarding appointment of the CJ, the proposed katiba provides as follows in the Sixth Schedule in Article 24 (page 207):
(2) A new Chief Justice shall be appointed by the President, subject to the National Accord and Reconciliation Act, and after consultation with the Prime Minister and with the approval of the National Assembly.
If you compare this with the RHDC pre-naivasha, you can clearly see that the PSC inserted the words "subject to the National Accord and Reconciliation Act" and CoE accepted this amendment/insertion.
Question I want to ask the doubters, what does the insertion of the phrase "subject to the National Accord and Reconciliation Act" imply in the appointment of the CJ?
Next is the AG and all other appointments
While the RHDC pre-naivasha provided for the PM to nominate the name of the AG, the president concurs and the name submitted to bunge for approval, this is the procedure in the Proposed Katiba - Article 29 of the Sixth Schedule (p210)
Unless this Schedule prescribes otherwise, when this Constitution requires an appointment to be made by the President with the approval of the National Assembly, until after the first elections under this Constitution, the President shall, subject to the National Accord and Reconciliation Act, appoint a person after consultation with the Prime Minister and with the approval of the National Assembly.
Please compare this Article titled "New Appointments" with the comparable article in the RHDC, also titled "New Appointments" which I have quoted earlier (Article 31 of the Sixth Schedule of RHDC) (p203)).
I will quote it for ease of reference:
(2) Unless this Schedule prescribes otherwise, when this Constitution requires an appointment to be made by the State President with the approval of the National Assembly or Senate, until after the first elections under this Constitution, the President shall appoint a person nominated by the Prime Minister with the
concurrence of the President and approved by the National Assembly
The difference is as clear as night & day:
The RHDC required the concurrence of the PM and President on ALL new appointments, during the transition phase, before the names of the nominees could be forwarded to bunge.
The Proposed katiba, on the other hand, has included the qualifying phrase "subject to the National Accord and Reconciliation Act". This phrase was inserted by the PSC and accepted by the CoE since it is in the Proposed Katiba and is absent in the RHDC.
So again Iask the doubters, what does the insertion of the phrase "subject to the National Accord and Reconciliation Act" imply in new appointments, including that of the AG, during the transition phase
So, there you have it.
I suggest, again, that people read it for themselves and stop swallowing whatever their preferred writers/propagandaists are writing in the papers.
|
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Apr 14, 2010 16:47:39 GMT 3
tactician,
You are repeating yourself to No end. But it is all good, Kenyans need to talk about the specifics in the Draft.
Let me help you with a few sentences. Those who wanted to pretend that Kibaki will be in charge of the transition as if NARA never happened did not get their wish. Inserting according to NARA makes no difference. Kibaki will consult with the PM in the appointment of the A,G, Chief Justice and the judges. It will be meaningful consultation otherwise the president will be breaking the law. This whole process kills the aspirations of the better thief society which insists Kibaki cheated in the NARA deal and should run the country whichever way he wishes.
This is a very critical matter because the judges are a key pillar in our judiciary which is rotten to the core and we Know Kibaki has been a key part of inventing that rotten institution. So having the PM injected into the process is very important.
This is actually a good thin for the country. We do have a coalition government in Kenya and the new Draft has incorporated that. I don't know why some people think it is always about how Kibaki can continue cheating and that would be good for the country. Kibaki does not have the monopoly of wisdom as we all know by now. He is almost 80 years old. The decisions he makes like stealing the election affect the rest of the country particularly the younger generation more than they affect him.
If Kibaki tries to play games, the PM can reject his appointments and denounce them. That is exactly what happened with the appointment of the LGB when the better thief society told Kibaki he can appoint anybody he wants whether Raila like it or not. We all know where that ended. The Speaker of the House ruled the two had to agree. If Kibaki wants another fight he will get one. In fact NARA could be headed to court. I am not so sure that is how Kibaki wants to start the new constitutional dispensation. If he wants to, he is welcome. We will meet him there.
Remember every one of these appointments will go to bunge this time. In the past Kibaki would appoint his neighbour's cat as the Chief Justice and that would be final.
So here we go. Let's say Kibaki decides to ignore the PM and makes these appointments by himself. All the PM has to do is send a letter to the Speaker of the House and distant himself from any such appointments. The Speaker will have to rule whether the appointments can be discussed in the first place since the constitution states that the President has to consult with the PM to make such appointments. Your guess is as good as mine on what such a ruling would be. So it is Kibaki's choice where he which route he wants to take. The PM will be reasonable but he knows if they end up with another rotten judiciary he will be equally blamed.
Otherwise like I told you before, the Draft is very good in many areas. I told you the counties are a good start at the moment because tribal warlords could have been very busy staking up their kingdoms. The real deal here is that as was envisioned in the BOMAS concept Kenya will for the first time have self governing counties with a share of the national budget. That is the big picture. Being fixated on whether those units are provinces or counties is a small detail. The principle has been achieved. In future the counties can merge into regions if they so wish and constitutional processes can be set up.
Also I don't know what makes you think that the 80 new constituency will be only for PNU unless you know something I don't know. What I know is that experts have said when constituencies in Rift Valley, Nyanza, Central, Western and NEP are split the balance of constituencies will remain pretty much the same except for a new 80 M.Ps which many Kenyans thought was unnecessary due to the cost.
Even on the Senate the CoE did a good job. Your beloved PSC tried to impose some ugly thing that meets four times a year to gossip and never deal with any form of legislation. CoE actually made a public statement that they would never accept that kind of a bogus senate. They changed it and PSC chaps promised to mess it again. Not a chance.
All in all the competition as to whether PNU or ODM won the constitution battle is to me wasted energy. The PNU Draft was the Wako Mongrel which gave us over 200 counties with no budget. Otherwise PNU would be very happy with the current constitution. The ideal constitution for the PNU would have been one where the president controlled everything and appointed a lap dog Prime Minister. Obviously they didn't get that. Neither did the ODM get their most preferred constitution. I am very cool with that.
So essentially Kenyans have won and I personally salute all those brave Kenyans who have fought so hard for a new constitution in the country including the NCCK when it was under sane leadership and some folks in the PNU like Kiraitu Murungi, Martha Karua and others. They have defeated the aristocrats and little cowards like Uhuru Kenyatta who have never stood for anything and only follow the wind. That is the big story for me.
adongo
|
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Apr 14, 2010 17:16:24 GMT 3
phil
unless the document currently before the AG is taken somewhere else for some more doctoring, the recommendations by the PSC is shelf material and only the Proposed Constitution of Kenya CoE Version dated 23rd Feb 2010 will become the law
so then comes the legal intepretation vs public understanding of the two statements
regarding the chief justice
==
A new Chief Justice shall be appointed by the President, subject to the National Accord and Reconciliation Act, and after consultation with the Prime Minister and with the approval of the National Assembly.
==
we may want to stop at the comma after "Reconciliation Act", but the clause continues "AND after consultation with the Prime Minister AND with the approval of the National Assembly"
there must be evidence of consultation with the PM and there must be evidence of approval from Parliament
ditto regarding the New appointments but the first AND is omitted.
whether that impacts consultation with PM i will leave that for grabs to the constitutional warriors
but......
this covers the grey period between when the new constitution is ratified (YES vote success if NO is successful, then nothing changes) and the effective date and only where an appointment MUST be made (cant wait). Because after the effective date, the new constitution states how the Chief Justice will be appointed and all those New appointments. in which case we go back to the particular sections. the only real items being transitioned to the next election are the 5 posts - pres, PM, VP, DPM x 2, plus the life of 10th parliament - (to avoid MPs running around aimlessly am guessing)
all other state officers have a defined schedule for their appointment from the effective date
I would like some interpretation from a constitutional lawyer to guide me here but am thinking there is a 14 day window only. if this is the case then kibaki must be willing to appoint some guys during this 14 day period but they must relinquish their posts after the effective date to pave way for the correct due process for new appointments after the constitution comes into effect
|
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Apr 14, 2010 17:25:26 GMT 3
tnk,
I have just updated my post above and I can see you have nailed the argument very clearly.
If the president makes appointments, particularly those that have to be approved by parliament, and the Prime Minister rejects them because he was not consulted or because he was being forced to accept an appointment he did not think was appropriate, all the PM needs to do is write to the Speaker of the House and denounce the appointment. Then the Speaker will have to make a ruling as to whether the appointment can even be discussed in parliament. Remember the LGB ruling. That would factor in.
In the LGB situation all that was required was for the president to consult with the PM and choose the LGB. Teh President decided not to. Actually the "consultation" was just to inform the PM that the president has chosen the V.P as the LGB. The PM wrote to the Speaker and rejected the appointment. M.Ps asked the Speaker to make a ruling on the matter before they could vote for the LGB. Kalonzo sure had the votes and that is what Kibaki was banking on.
The ruling the Speaker made was about who represents the government? In his ruling he asserted quite clearly that under NARA the two principals both represented the government and in matters where they had to consult, they had to speak with one voice. That ruling was never challenged in a court of law and it stands. Need I say more? So in all appointments going through parliament there is already a kiboko for mischief makers.
The real deal when they inserted according to NARA in my interpretation is that the president remains the appointing officer as long he follows the new law. That is good enough. Nothing changed in the big transition picture. That is a good thing unless you are a Kibaki or PNU fundamentalist who thinks Kibaki knows everything that is good for the country.
adongo
|
|
|
|
Post by sunday on Apr 14, 2010 18:04:46 GMT 3
Tactician, I'll let Adongo and Phil answer you. You're trying to water down a very important document that will affect both you, your kids, your grand kids, and even your great grand kids. At first you seemed to be happy that the prime minister would only consult in the appointment of ministers! First you're really missing the point, this constitution like I said is not just for Raila and Kibaki, but you seem fixated in how Raila has been conered by Kibaki, albeit without reading the entire clauses. Sasa you've been conered and now you change tact Tactician.
Just like Adongo has clearly stated, to me it looks like the one kibaki is the conered one. He'll be forced to consult this time, not just on ministerial appointments, virtually ALL appointments
|
|
|
|
Post by tactician on Apr 14, 2010 18:10:08 GMT 3
tnk,I have just updated my post above and I can see you have nailed the argument very clearly. If the president makes appointments and the Prime Minister rejects them because he was not consulted or because he was being forced to accept an appointment he did not think was appropriate, all he needs to do is write to the Speaker of the House and denounce the appointment, then the Speaker will have to make a ruling as to whether the appointment can be discussed in parliament. Remember the LGB ruling. That would factor in. In the LGB situation all that was required was for the president to consult with the PM and choose the LGB. The ruling the Speaker made was about who represents the government? In his ruling under NARA the two principals both represented the government and in matters where they had to consult, they had to speak with one voice. That ruling was never challenged in a court of law and it stands. Need I say more? The real deal when they inserted according to NARA in my interpretation is that the president remains the appointing officer as long he follows the new law. That is good enough. Nothing changed in the big transition picture. That is a good thing unless you are a Kibaki or PNU fundamentalist who thinks Kibaki knows everything that is good for the country. adongo Adongo, You are mixing up issues! The LGB ruling has no bearing whatsoever on the present discussion on the transition clauses. If i may jog ur memory, the LGB is NOT a constitutional office. It is an office created by the Standing Orders of bunge. So saying that PM will simply tell Speaker that he was not consulted will NOT wash and hoping that Marende will rule in Raila's favour is hogwash... This is a constitutional matter that will require interpretation by the High Court and if need be the constitutional court. In the LGB case, the speaker was the final authority as decribed by the current katiba. Secondly, the reason the speaker had to rule in LGB case is simple - the standing orders require the "govt" to designate the LGB....and the question arose, what was the meaning of govt? In this case, the katiba is very clear! you must abide by NARA. And you cannot prevaricate that the transition clauses require President to consult PM. One of the basic ways of interpreting katibas & laws is to ask ur self why was a certain clause included if it was not there b4.... so i ask u...why was the clause "subject to NARA" included? And don't tell me it has no meaning!!! |
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Apr 14, 2010 18:32:27 GMT 3
tactician,
I don't want go round in circles about appointments. Surely there are other things in the constitution.
First of when the Speaker made the ruling on the LGB matter, it was not a ruling for Raila as you may want to believe. Lets' get away from these obsessions some times. The ruling was an interpretation of NARA which Kibaki was trying to circumvent.
The LGB ruling was an interpretation of NARA so I don't understand what you mean by this statement.
"In this case, the katiba is very clear! you must abide by NARA."
That is exactly what the LGB ruling is namely an interpretation of NARA. Go back and read it.
The Draft is very clear that the president has to consult with the PM to make these constitutional appointments. Why do you think that was inserted by the CoE? Why didn't the PSC just say, abide by NARA in all appointments and delete the requirement for the president consulting the PM?
As long as that is stated in the constitution it becomes a legal requirement. If your PSC chaps wanted to change the transition process that is what they should have removed. They couldn't get the guts to do so.
As long as parliament has to approve an appointment that has to be done by the president and the PM, their first duty is to make sure that the appointment was done according to the laws of the land. Barack Obama can consult his V.P when he wants to appoint the Secretary of State but it is not a legal requirement it is good governance and common sense. We don't expect that in Kenya at this time. But the law will soon require that president, however crooked they may be, will have to consult with the PM in making these transition appointments.
If they want to take it to High Court after all hell break lose, they are welcome. Kenyans will meet them there.
I have already told you that the insertion of NARA simply means the president remains the appointing officer as long as he follows the new law. If he does not the PM has every right take the matter to parliament and let the Speaker make a ruling as to whether parliament can discuss an illegal appointment. After that they can go to court if they want. Never mind that is the same judges the country will be appointing.
My sense is that that bridge has been crossed. It is going to be a nightmare for Kibaki resorting to his bad habits just after the country has voted for a new country and the nation is ready to move forward. There is a limit to the politics of trickery. Kenyans are tired of it. I am bigger than you kind of politics has to go for once. The country is bigger than ancient politicians who should be resting at home.
Also remember the Ringera case. It was a constitutional appointment. The law says Kibaki had to consult with the Advisory Board which is a minor player compared to the PM's office. Why was Ringera rejected? Because Kibaki appointed him without consulting the Advisory Board.
Now imagine Kibaki wants to sneak in an AG or Chief Justice and the PM declares he was not consulted and is not part of that appointment. That would be stuffing you hand into a hornet's nest and expecting good reception. Not wise.
There are very many tools to circumvent any more treachery in constitutional appointments which will be happening almost less than a year to elections. Even M.Ps will be worrying about their re-election and will not support unpopular and certainly not illegal appointments. Nothing is going to be sneaked in. Fair and clean, that is going to be the name of the game. Sounds good to me.
At the end of the day all that the Draft says is that President Kibaki will have to make serious, genuine and honest consultations with the Prime Minister Raila Odinga, make decisions then Kibaki can propose the names they agree on to Parliament. What could possibly be wrong with that? Isn't that how people live and work all over the world. Why do some people want to perpetuate this better thief syndrome forever? For whose interests?
adongo
|
|
|
|
Post by tactician on Apr 14, 2010 19:52:15 GMT 3
tactician,I don't want go round in circles about appointments. Surely there are other things in the constitution. First of when the Speaker made the ruling on the LGB matter, it was not a ruling for Raila as you may want to believe. Lets' get away from these obsessions some times. The ruling was an interpretation of NARA which Kibaki was trying to circumvent. The LGB ruling was an interpretation of NARA so I don't understand what you mean by this statement. "In this case, the katiba is very clear! you must abide by NARA."That is exactly what the LGB ruling is namely an interpretation of NARA. Go back and read it. The Draft is very clear that the president has to consult with the PM to make these constitutional appointments. Why do you think that was inserted by the CoE? Why didn't the PSC just say, abide by NARA in all appointments and delete the requirement for the president consulting the PM? As long as that is stated in the constitution it becomes a legal requirement. If your PSC chaps wanted to change the transition process that is what they should have removed. They couldn't get the guts to do so. As long as parliament has to approve an appointment that has to be done by the president and the PM, their first duty is to make sure that the appointment was done according to the laws of the land. Barack Obama can consult his V.P when he wants to appoint the Secretary of State but it is not a legal requirement it is good governance and common sense. We don't expect that in Kenya at this time. But the law will soon require that president, however crooked they may be, will have to consult with the PM in making these transition appointments. If they want to take it to High Court after all hell break lose, they are welcome. Kenyans will meet them there. I have already told you that the insertion of NARA simply means the president remains the appointing officer as long as he follows the new law. If he does not the PM has every right take the matter to parliament and let the Speaker make a ruling as to whether parliament can discuss an illegal appointment. After that they can go to court if they want. Never mind that is the same judges the country will be appointing.My sense is that that bridge has been crossed. It is going to be a nightmare for Kibaki resorting to his bad habits just after the country has voted for a new country and the nation is ready to move forward. There is a limit to the politics of trickery. Kenyans are tired of it. I am bigger than you kind of politics has to go for once. The country is bigger than ancient politicians who should be resting at home. Also remember the Ringera case. It was a constitutional appointment. The law says Kibaki had to consult with the Advisory Board which is a minor player compared to the PM's office. Why was Ringera rejected? Because Kibaki appointed him without consulting the Advisory Board. Now imagine Kibaki wants to sneak in an AG or Chief Justice and the PM declares he was not consulted and is not part of that appointment. That would be stuffing you hand into a hornet's nest and expecting good reception. Not wise. There are very many tools to circumvent any more treachery in constitutional appointments which will be happening almost less than a year to elections. Even M.Ps will be worrying about their re-election and will not support unpopular and certainly not illegal appointments. Nothing is going to be sneaked in. Fair and clean, that is going to be the name of the game. Sounds good to me. At the end of the day all that the Draft says is that President Kibaki will have to make serious, genuine and honest consultations with the Prime Minister Raila Odinga, make decisions then Kibaki can propose the names they agree on to Parliament. What could possibly be wrong with that? Isn't that how people live and work all over the world. Why do some people want to perpetuate this better thief syndrome forever? For whose interests? adongo Adongo, Just because i disagree with your opinion does NOT make me a thief. I demand an apology - this is plain unacceptable! We can have our differences but to call my opinion wanting to perpetuate a thieving syndrome is just wrong. Apologise mr. |
|
|
|
Post by adongo23456 on Apr 14, 2010 20:33:38 GMT 3
tactician,
Where did I call you a thief? I would never do that. You are a very nice person and you present your arguments pretty well and in a civilized manner. In fact I think you add a lot of value to Jukwaa. If I called you a thief you can accept my apologies. Of course I did not.
What I call the "better thief syndrome" is an argument we have had here for a very long time. It is the way I refer to the thinking of some people who assert that Kibaki cheated Raila during the NARA negotiations and took everything, therefore according to this bizarre argument, Kibaki does not need to respect the fact that we indeed have a GCG where both principals have to work with each other instead of fighting all the time and dragging the country back wards.
That has been a long going argument and I have never referred to an individual but at the concept which says If I still your stuff I can still trick you and If I am a better trickster then then the world is mine.
My thinking is that the election was stolen, the country went to war and NARA saved the country and set up a GCG and I thought it would have been much better for the country if the president fully accepted that situation and worked with his colleagues instead of looking for tricks which is what he has been doing ever since being cheered by his cronies.
It seemed to me that it is the same thinking being applied to the transition clause and I think it is dangerous for the country. That is all. I cannot stand the thinking that conmanship should be celebrated particularly when they are trying to con the country.
Otherwise I think the discussions are very necessary. Many people read Jukwaa and they pick up things here and therefore. This is a forum for debate and not abuse.
So peace my friend and keep up the good work.
adongo
|
|
|
|
Post by tactician on Apr 14, 2010 20:46:03 GMT 3
tactician,Where did I call you a thief? I would never do that. You are a very nice person and you present your arguments pretty well and in a civilized manner. In fact I think you add a lot of value to Jukwaa. If I called you a thief you can accept my apologies. Of course I did not. What I call the "better thief syndrome" is an argument we have heard here for a very long time. It is the way I refer to thinking of some people who assert that Kibaki cheated Raila during the NARA negotiations and took everything, therefore according to this bizarre argument, Kibaki does not need to respect the fact that we indeed have a GCG where both principals have to work with each other instead of fighting all the time and dragging the country back wards. That has been a long going argument and I have never referred to an individual but at the concept which says If I still your stuff I can still trick you and If I am a better trickster then then the world is mine. My thinking is that the election was stolen, the country went to war and NARA saved the country and set up a GCG and I thought it would have been much better off if the president fully accepted that situation and worked with his colleagues instead of looking for tricks which is what he has been doing ever since being cheered by his cronies. It seemed to me that it is the same thinking being applied to the transition clause and I think it is dangerous for the country. That is all. I cannot stand the thinking that conmen should be celebrated particularly when they are trying to con the country. Otherwise I think the discussions are very necessary. Many people read Jukwaa and they pick up things here and therefore. This is a forum for debate and not abuse. So peace my friend and keep up the good work. adongo Apology accepted. laters |
|
