SPEAKER MARENDE to rule on Thursday

[nowayhaha]

www.nation.co.ke/News/politics/-/1064/1099636/-/7ax97x/-/index.html

The row over the nominations in the Judiciary made by President Kibaki last Friday is currently under debate in Parliament.

Image Gallery

Related Downloads

* DOWNLOAD: The Constitution of Kenya

Parliament resumed Tuesday afternoon after a two-week hiatus to a heated debate on the controversy regarding whether the nominations were made in accordance with the constitution.

Since the announcement, there has been sharp reactions from different parties, mainly criticising the appointments on the basis that consultations were not made.

Prime Minister Raila Odinga had earlier said that he was "shocked and dismayed" by the appointments made while he was away at the African Union summit.

In Parliament, Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka on Tuesday defended the President, saying the Prime Minister was adequately consulted and they came to an agreements on all but one of the names: that of the Chief Justice.

The VP said that the Prime Minister was for appointment of a foreign Chief Justice, but the President insisted on a local appointment, upon which Mr Odinga proposed Justice Riaga Omollo.

President Kibaki, however, on the basis of neutrality chose to appoint Justice Visram, since he was from a minority community.

He explained that President needed to make the appointments before leaving for the African Union summit. This was to demonstrate that Kenya had made reforms in the judiciary and could have the trials of the six suspects of the post-election violence done locally.

He said the PM was informed that the matter needed to be concluded before President Kibaki left for Addis Ababa and consultations could be facilitated on phone.

"The Prime Minister was asked to call the President from Addis Ababa so that they could finalise," adding that the PM said that he would call.

However, the Vice President indicated that the premier did not call.

"The President waited at Harambee House from 12:30pm until 3pm but the Prime Minister did not call."

While responding to the VP's remarks, the Prime Minister argued that the appointments were made in a hurry to convince the AU summit of judicial reforms in the country.

He said he had proposed for a CJ from a Commonwealth country to stand in for a fixed term of three years, so that there could be ample time to vet the local judges.

Mr Odinga said his proposal on Justice Omollo came after President Kibaki insisted on local judge, because he (Justice Omollo) came first, according to the Judicial Service Commission's "pecking order."

Earlier, Gichugu legislator Martha Karua while responding to a defence of President Kibaki's appointments, said "the President got tired of consultations." It is my plea that we must not tire on such important issues," she said.

She said the matter must be referred back to the two principals, since "in conclusion, there is no agreement."

Ms Karua called on the Speaker of the National Assembly Kenneth Marende to be the final arbiter, and determine the direction of the matter.

Debate continues.

[Mobimba]

Rumors are that if Marende rejects the nominations, a vote of no confidence on the PM is to immediately follow.

Let's wait and see.

[mzee]

Feb 1, 2011 20:01:20 GMT 3 Mobimba said:

Rumors are that if Marende rejects the nominations, a vote of no confidence on the PM is to immediately follow.

Let's wait and see.

As Anyang Nyongo would have said "bring it on"

[phil]

Feb 1, 2011 20:01:20 GMT 3 Mobimba said:

Rumors are that if Marende rejects the nominations, a vote of no confidence on the PM is to immediately follow.

Let's wait and see.

This is an option that has for a long time been on the cards for retrogressive forces of impunity. But there are reasons it has never seen light of day. It has its own risks given the NARA provision which have been carried forward to the new dispensation

Personally, my thinking is that this country has been shafted for far too long with this fake powersharing and it is regrettable that some Kenyans mistakenly believe that ODM and its leadership is part of this conspiracy to subvert democracy and reforms. I think for now ODM is better placed performing as opposition. But as co-principal in the GCG means hanging on in there right to the end.

Perhaps even better still, the ouster of Kenya's legit winner of 2007 presidency from the premiership would only serve as a perfect launch pad for a second and much more stronger bid for power in 2012. There is a risk a censure motion on Raila will also spell a premature end to Kibaki's stolen presidency. It would definitely spark off a number of events that may not argur well for the movers of such a motion.

Even with good riddance of Ruto and allies, ODM is not as weak as many a media wants us to believe. Its not that easy.

[gemagema]

Storm in Parliament over judicial nominees
www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/Kenyanews/Storm-in-Parliament-over-judicial-nominees-11502.html

NAIROBI, Kenya Feb 1 - The row over the controversial nomination of three key judicial office holders took centre stage in Parliament after the House re-opened on Tuesday afternoon.

MPs were divided down in the middle over the nominations with those supporting President Mwai Kibaki supporting the move while those allied to Prime Minister Raila Odinga protested against the list.

Tempers and emotions flared in the House over whether President Kibaki consulted Prime Minister Raila Odinga on the nomination of Justice Alnashir Visram as Chief Justice, Kioko Kilukumi as the Director of Public Prosecutions and Professor Githu Muigai to be the Attorney General.

National Speaker Speaker Kenneth Marende is later in the week expected to rule whether Parliament will continue and vet the names as required by law.

“This is a matter of national importance and I will make a ruling on Thursday at 2.30pm,” said Mr Marende.

MPs Danson Mungatana and Farah Maalim kicked off the debate which was initiated by Imenti Central MP Gitobu Imanyara who had requested for a ruling on the thorny issue.

"The only issue for this House to consider is whether there was any consultation between the President and the PM, consultation is not information, consultation is concurrence," said Mr Maalim.

Justice Minister Mutula Kilonzo challenged the coalition principals to apply the rule of law when making such appointments to ensure their actions do not precipitate unnecessarily political tensions in the country.

“It is my argument that we request the two principals to apply and demonstrate respect to the public,” said Mr Kilonzo.

Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka gave a chronology of the consultations between the two coalition partners to a hushed House.

Mr Musyoka told Parliament that Mr Odinga held the last meeting on the issue last month.

He said the last attempt by President Kibaki to have the final agreement on the names was done when Mr Odinga was in Addis Ababa for the AU meeting.

“It’s for the country to decide who between the President and the PM is telling the truth,” said the VP

He said Mr Odinga had suggested a foreign Chief Justice, a proposal that was shot down by President Kibaki who argued that Kenya has enough local talent and the was likely to send the wrong message to the legal fraternity

Mr Musyoka said Mr Odinga had no problem with Prof Githu Muigai as Attorney General but insisted on Justice Riaga Omollo being nominated as Chief Justice.

Prime Minister Raila Odinga who was in the House during the debate admitted to having held consultations with President Kibaki over the judicial appointments but maintained that they were not exhaustive.

He disclosed that the inconclusive consultations had agreed on Justice Kihara Kariuki for CJ, Fred Ojiambo as AG and Kioko Kilukumi as DPP.

While responding to minutes of the meetings presented by Leader of the Government business in the House Kalonzo Musyoka, he said the information was not correct.

"I have no objection against these individuals who were nominated; my only problem is that there was no competitiveness. I insist this process was unconstitutional, needs to be nullified and start afresh,” said the Premier.

Mr Odinga refuted claims that he suggested the name of Justice Riaga Omollo to be the Chief Justice as indicated by Mr Kalonzo.

He said the names of Judge Vishram and Prof Muigai did not appear during the meeting and so he was not consulted.

Gichugu MP Martha Karua has told Parliament that the argument indicates that there was no agreement between the two leaders.

"The President must not tire to consult, from what Leader of Government Business has said I conclude that consultations were not complete," she said.

Ms Karua said the names should originate from the Judicial Service Commission before being tabled in Parliament for approval.

“We must have persons who don’t get tired and can actually burn the midnight oil to lead the country; you cannot sit as a CJ who is not vetted, and start vetting the judges,” she said.

She said the appointments should reflect the regional and gender balance.

Constitutional Implementation Oversight Committee Chairman Mohamed Abdikadir asked the leaders ensure that the process is transparent.

[gemagema]

Can't wait for thursday..very anxious how Marende will rule

[kamalet]

Mmmm..soon or later, the chickens will be coming home to roost!

[gemagema]

Raila says he never suggested Riaga Omollo's name, yet Kibaki and his lackey Kalonzo insist he did? Why is that the case? Is Raila trying to protect his interest, in this case Orengo, who had hoped for the position, even though his name does not seem to have featured during the ramshackle consultations? Or is Kibaki trying to tell Kenyans that Raila is also a tribalist (despite the fact that Kenyans already know that) like himself for forwarding a name of a person from the Lake region?

Moreover, reading the news from parliament, one gets the impression that Raila may have been cornered and his positions seem to shift from 'no' consultations to 'some' consultations...regrettably some inconsistency that does not augur well for search a deep heated public debate on key issues of our nation

[adongo23456]

The ball is in Marende's' court now. I don't think that is what the PNU chaps wanted. Someone told Muthaura that they have the votes in parliament. They forgot about the Speaker. Big mistake. Marende is not going to contradict himself. We told these people a long time ago there is a reason the transition clauses provided that the two principals consult. There is a reason the words "NARA" were inserted in the transition chapter. It was exactly to avoid what is happening now. From what these people are talking about, there was no need for Kibaki to even bother calling the PM. His decision was final end of story.

I don't think this thing will last till Thursday. I can see some of these nominees if they don't have political stakes pulling out. In fact I suspect the devious Muthaura is going to be calling them and asking to throw the towel to save Kibaki from the humiliation facing him.

[kamalet]

So these two guys sat, discussed names, a bit of horse trading and then it fell over?

I am inclined to think that Raila could have suggested a foreign judge and Kibaki disagreed. So when it came to a local judge was it Riaga or Kihara? Kibaki says that Raila talked of Riaga (and this is the name that has been floated around in various blogs as the man Raila wanted. Whilst Kihara seemed to the be PNU preferred candidate, it would appear that Kibaki ignored all and sundry and named Visram as CJ (to quote Kalonzo) to give the appointment an air of neutrality!

How about the AG? So for Raila, if Kihara had been named CJ, he wanted Fred Ojiambo to be AG. THe DPP post seemed to have been resolved as far as Kioko was concerned.

Raila will probably say that the name of Visram was not presented to him for consultation, but that is the only position he can hold on to if no further evidence is made to the contrary.

The statement that the names were made unilaterally is now a confirmed lie and Raila conceded in Parliament that they consulted but the problem seems to be concurrence!

One thing that Marende cannot attempt to do is interpret the constitution on what consultation means because unlike Standing Orders where he is lord and king (and which he used to rule on the LGB case), constitutional interpretation is the exclusive domain of the judiciary. Marende will only rule on whether there was consultation or not in its truest meaning.

[job]

Despite a very busy & hectic day, I sneak-peeked through the parliamentary debate on and off.



With the sole aim of portraying the PM as a liar (casting aspersions on his credibility), it is obvious that PNU rehearsed a well scripted presentation to hoodwink the public in Bunge. It failed, but was hinged on four things:


(a) written statement read by the VP Kalonzo, detailing a chronology of 'consultation' between the President and the PM. But as we got from Martha Karua's eloquent presentation, incomplete consultations, on-going consultations, or a breakdown in consultations, does not in any way satisfy the requirement for CONSULTATIONS.


(b) a witness testimony from CIOC Chair Abdikadir to buttress the argument that he was aware consultations were going on for at least two weeks. This is rendered impotent as soon as we see the obvious breakdown in consultations. There is no consultation that can be pronounced to have been accomplished until it is sufficiently completed.


(c) a researched statement from Jeremiah Kioni, with documents to table, showing that the Naivasha PSC removed the word 'agreement' from the draft constitution- leaving the word 'consultation' alone. This is an admission that Kibaki was in this just for mere formality, assuming probably there was no need for an agreement. Kibaki was not intending to respect the spirit and letter of the word CONSULTATION.


PNU's misguided argument is that consultation doesn't have to always result in agreement. The question they failed to consider is - in the possible event of a breakdown in consultation, can one party to consultation go ahead and declare consultation to be complete?


(d) shaping public opinion regarding arbitor towards their intended direction - another Kibaki-unilaterally-instituted Constitution Dispute Resolution Court. They forgot that Parliament in itself has its own check-and-balance mechanisms, a very crucial one residing in the Speaker's office.


If Marende finds that no sufficient consultations took place, then he will NOT allow a floor vote, end of story. The two principals will have to get their act together. The Constitution Dispute Court can also not dictate to Parliament, or to the Speaker, on how to perform his duties in this independent arm of government called legislature.


This PNU plot was very clever but not enough. It was a good audition for an Oscars Award in Acting, but it FAILED the test of credibility in a big way.



On (a) Kalonzo's read-out statement. As they say, the devil lies in the details. It is quite difficult for a listening audience and public to comb out unmatching details while simultaneously listening to a narrative being read out in real time.


But the moment the same statement is published and you go through it, you begin to notice in black-and-white, the inconsistencies and hidden lies embedded in it.


First, as someone has already pointed out in a seperate thread, without blinking an eye, Kalonzo Musyoka read on his point #6, that, from the consultations, upon Fred Ojiambo's rejection by the President (on the flimsy grounds that the former didn't possess post-graduate qualifications), the Prime Minister was given a chance to pick another Attorney General. Then Kalonzo in#7 states that a 'technical commitee' came up with Githu Muigai's name.


Every Tom, Dick and Harry knows that neither is the Prime Minister the same thing as 'technical committee' nor was that 'technical committee' required by the constitution to do any consultation. The constitution only requires two people, the president & PM, to consult. So, if Kibaki asked Raila to come up with a name for AG, how come he never got a chance to do so?


Kalonzo is the same one who confirms that Kibaki is the one who picked Githu Muigai as AG.So why the heck was he asking Raila to propose one - was it just as a formality so he can turn around later and claim that they actually consulted? These games need to stop!


This confusion over the AG is the point where the first breakdown in consultation began. The PM realized what Kibaki had done - unilaterally appointing both the AG & DPP, then attempting to move on to again run rough-shod in the appointment of the CJ. The PM at this point tried to put forth his proposal for the CJ so as to be part of the overall outcome of the consultations.


Since the President had already ruled out Raila's proposal for a foreign CJ, the PM floated the name of the seniormost Judge (after Gicheru), who is Justice RSC Omollo. Again, like in Ojiambo's case, the President rejected Omollo's name for reasons known to himself (which is quite easy to guess). That's when, without consulting the Prime Minister yet again, the pliant Visram's name was pulled out of the magic hat by Kibaki and sent to media while the PM was enroute to Addis Ababa.


Bottom line here - unstructured consultations led to an overall breakdown in consultations, resulting in one party unilaterally making up all the nominations without the other's involvement. In a nutshell, as Martha Karua said, it is a FAILURE IN CONSULTATIONS = NO CONSULTATIONS YET!!!!!


Kalonzo's statement attempts to conflate these facts but nevertheless falls short. Kibaki cannot ask Raila to propose the name of an AG, then shove it aside, put his own, then again shove aside the PM's proposal for CJ, put his own, and still pass this for consultations.


The spirit of the constitutional requirement for consultation (which the CIC is required to appraise), was clearly missing in this process, precisely because Kibaki was brushing aside the PM's input, while unilaterally forcing his own picks. This would have been ok if the constitution only required the president's input, without the PM's. Unfortunately that's not what the constitution requires.


Secondly, the choreographed testimony by PNU's Abdikadir is clearly an alibi-setting venture preparing for the Constitutional Dispute Resolution Court. It's a hatchet job to cover transgressions by his party boss.


Kioni's input is even more troubling because its intention is to kill the spirit of the constitution, and dwell literally on words and letters, as if the constitution is an abstract document with no life. Words within the constitution, such as CONSULTATION should be interpretated both in letters and in spirit. Whatever they did at Naivasha - removing the word AGREEMENT from the document - should not be dignified further by ignoring thereal interpretation of the word CONSULTATION.


Again politically, it is obvious that Narc-K and Ford-K are running away from PNU's treacherous games. Nobody want s to be counted as part of these heinous KKk schemes. It will be dangerous to frameparliamentary support on shaky grounds such as KKk vs the rest, and I doubt if that's the route PNU and Kalonzo want to shape this. Marende must put these games to an end, period![/b]

[adongo23456]

Kamale,

Marende will rule whether the names can be tabled in parliament for debate and consideration. In making that ruling Marende has to rely on the law and specifically the transition clauses. It is therefore ridiculous to suggest that Marende cannot interpret the law. How else would he make a ruling?

In the LGB ruling in which some of you were very sure Marende would rule in favour of Kibaki, the issue had nothing to do with standing orders. The ruling was that if the Speaker receives contradictory statements from the two principals, he is bound by NARA (not standing orders) to reject the name proposed to him by the president.

If I was Marende I would make a ruling a long the following lines. That the two principals did start the consultation process but were unable or unwilling to complete the consultation leading to him being in possession of conflicting positions from the two principals. According the nominations are invalid. Marende can then decide to refer the matter back to the two principals or simply say it is up to them and proceed with other matters in bunge. Marende really doesn't care about what transpired between Kibaki and Raila. he is only concerned about the official position they have given him. Marende is not a fly in anybody's room to report or determine whether they met and what they talked about. He has to go by the official communication.

In the world of adults, Kibaki should simply have waited for the PM to get back, have more consultations and agree on what to do. Instead it is running a kindergarten. Now someone else has to bring the bully to his senses. Do they still allow caning of errant kids down there. Here they don't. I think the little one over there needs some serious spanking and good old butt whipping.

adongo

[akinyi2005]

according to the PM (if i heard right) two out of the four names were totally strange to him and hadn't even featured in their on-going consultations. why then did kibaki think RAO would rubber-stamp a decision that he wasn't party to? i am so looking forward to thursday to see ducky's behind exposed for all to see him for the fraud he is.

[kamalet]

Feb 1, 2011 21:58:14 GMT 3 adongo23456 said:

Kamale,

Marende will rule whether the names can be tabled in parliament for debate and consideration. In making that ruling Marende has to rely on the law and specifically the transition clauses. It is therefore ridiculous to suggest that Marende cannot interpret the law. How else would he make a ruling?

In the LGB ruling in which some of you were very sure Marende would rule in favour of Kibaki, the issue had nothing to do with standing orders. The ruling was that if the Speaker receives contradictory statements from the two principals, he is bound by NARA (not standing orders) to reject the name proposed to him by the president.

If I was Marende I would make a ruling a long the following lines. That the two principals did start the consultation process but were unable or unwilling to complete the consultation leading to him being possession of conflicting positions from the two principals. According the nominations are invalid. Marende can then decide to refer the matter back to the two principals or simply say it is up to them and proceed with other matters in bunge. Marende really doesn't care about what transpired between Kibaki and Raila. he is only concerned about the official position they have given him. Marende is not a fly in anybody's room to report or determine whether they met and what they talked about. He has to go by the official communication.

In the world of adults, Kibaki should simply have waited for the PM to get back, have more consultations and agree on what to do. Instead it is running a kindergarten. Now someone else has to bring the bully to his senses. Do they still allow caning of errant kids down there. Here they don't. I think the little one over there needs some serious spanking and good old butt whipping.

adongo

Adongo

Unfortunately, that is only your opinion which you are entitled to and that can never be a fact merely because you said it. I gave mine which I am entitled to and never claimed it to be the fact!

But out of curiosity, is the inconsistency in the behaviour of the PM in this whole saga a matter of concern for you? When you consider that he came from Addis and told us that the decision of Kibaki was unilateral and you rushed to back that as the final word - is this new revelation that he indeed had discussed this matter with the president something that gives you confidence in all that you are still backing?

When there are serious credibility issues as is the case, it is quite clear that Mutua's statement was the truth and Raila lied!

[job]

Feb 1, 2011 21:58:14 GMT 3 adongo23456 said:

Kamale,

Marende will rule whether the names can be tabled in parliament for debate and consideration. In making that ruling Marende has to rely on the law and specifically the transition clauses. It is therefore ridiculous to suggest that Marende cannot interpret the law. How else would he make a ruling?


If I was Marende I would make a ruling a long the following lines. That the two principals did start the consultation process but were unable or unwilling to complete the consultation leading to him being in possession of conflicting positions from the two principals. According the nominations are invalid. Marende can then decide to refer the matter back to the two principals or simply say it is up to them and proceed with other matters in bunge. Marende really doesn't care about what transpired between Kibaki and Raila. he is only concerned about the official position they have given him. Marende is not a fly in anybody's room to report or determine whether they met and what they talked about. He has to go by the official communication.

adongo

Once Marende puts a stop to this attempt to force presidential unilateralism down the throats of an entire nation, we shall then say that the new constitution and its institutions are beginning to effect some checks-and-balances against the old order.

I'm sorry there is no room for shafting, shenanigans, and mischief in the new constitution. Even if Kibaki pretends to discuss with the PM on the appointment, so long as the PM never gets a chance for input into the outcome, no consultation will be deemed to have taken place, period!

[adongo23456]

Kamale,

The information out is very clear. The President and the PM started the consultation process. In fact the PM said yesterday that he had told the president that they should discuss the matter after he comes back. That turns out to be true. Then Kibaki does the foolish move of just releasing names after sitting in his office waiting for Raila to call him. In fact Kibaki brought up names that were not even discussed by the two. What then was the point of even trying to consult. What do you call that? It is called a unilateral decision.

My confidence is based on the simple fact that the Speaker is in receipt of two letters telling him different stories. The speaker is not a magician. He has the two letters and the constitution to work with.

This thing will NOT wash. Kibaki can the go to court.

[mwalimumkuu]

Feb 1, 2011 22:20:22 GMT 3 job said:

Feb 1, 2011 21:58:14 GMT 3 adongo23456 said:

Kamale,

Marende will rule whether the names can be tabled in parliament for debate and consideration. In making that ruling Marende has to rely on the law and specifically the transition clauses. It is therefore ridiculous to suggest that Marende cannot interpret the law. How else would he make a ruling?


If I was Marende I would make a ruling a long the following lines. That the two principals did start the consultation process but were unable or unwilling to complete the consultation leading to him being in possession of conflicting positions from the two principals. According the nominations are invalid. Marende can then decide to refer the matter back to the two principals or simply say it is up to them and proceed with other matters in bunge. Marende really doesn't care about what transpired between Kibaki and Raila. he is only concerned about the official position they have given him. Marende is not a fly in anybody's room to report or determine whether they met and what they talked about. He has to go by the official communication.

adongo

Once Marende puts a stop to this attempt to force presidential unilateralism down the throats of an entire nation, we shall then say that the new constitution and its institutions are beginning to effect some checks-and-balances against the old order.

I'm sorry there is no room for shafting, shenanigans, and mischief in the new constitution. Even if Kibaki pretends to discuss with the PM on the appointment, so long as the PM never gets a chance for input into the outcome, no consultation will be deemed to have taken place, period!

Before you get too excited, a few truths will do. It is not disputable that the ODM case in parliament was as pathetic as the lie they are trying to sell around and as they come. As you clearly heard from the floor of the house and have read from various news outlets, Raila was consulted not once, not twice. What did he tell the whole world on his arrival from Addis? What is he saying now? The impression created so far is that the contention has only arisen because Riaga Omolo did not get the job Raila had promised him.

To me Abdikaddir's and Kioni's input disabused many Kenyans minds. Especially when you fathom that the drafters of the katiba saw the wisdom of replacing the words AGREE with CONSULTATION. Why because using words with such absoluteness as agree would have created a major problem to the Katiba and thats why we have the next level of parliament to deal with the issue. And by parliament here we do not mean Marende. That to me provided a very important historical background to what we are witnessing.

However, to me those are not even the issues, what has worried me the most is the fact that CIOC and JSC, do not seem to comprehend their mandate. That is a red flag right there.

[b6k]

@ Job, the contentious word dropped by the Naivasha PSC was "consensus" & not "agreement". Same meaning, different word.

I do agree with you that it's rather difficult to follow the proceedings as they are narrated. In fact I could've sworn I heard Raila slip up. The way I understood his chronology of events from 06/12/2010, he intimated that on the 2 occassions the principles met lists of potential nominees came solely from the Kibaki side. He then read a long list of CJ nominees that had Visram way down as candidate 7 or 8. Later on, he contradicted himself by saying Visram's was one of 2 names that had NEVER been mentioned. Fog of war, maybe?

Given the performance of the LGB & RAO narrating their sides of the tale, I found Raila to be the more credible of the two. Afterall, unlike Kalonzo he was actually there in the said "consultations". I hope LGB doesn't find himself holding the crap end of the stick (ala Colin Powell in the UN Assembly) now that he's been spoon fed with the PNU crowd's sanitized version of events. It ain't easy playing the hatchet man for his lethargic boss.

[tnk]

Feb 1, 2011 21:58:14 GMT 3 adongo23456 said:

Kamale,

Marende will rule whether the names can be tabled in parliament for debate and consideration. In making that ruling Marende has to rely on the law and specifically the transition clauses. It is therefore ridiculous to suggest that Marende cannot interpret the law. How else would he make a ruling?

If I was Marende I would make a ruling a long the following lines. That the two principals did start the consultation process but were unable or unwilling to complete the consultation leading to him being in possession of conflicting positions from the two principals. According the nominations are invalid. Marende can then decide to refer the matter back to the two principals or simply say it is up to them and proceed with other matters in bunge. Marende really doesn't care about what transpired between Kibaki and Raila. he is only concerned about the official position they have given him. Marende is not a fly in anybody's room to report or determine whether they met and what they talked about. He has to go by the official communication.

adongo

adongo i think its unfortunate that marende has to once again play the role of solomon (of the bible)

anyhow if i was marende based on these facts presented as i understand it as follows

yes preliminary and possibly follow up or advanced discussions may have been held

however from the narrative from kalonzo, the discussions/consultation ranged from informal to formal. in order to conclude the consultation both principals needed to document a final meeting acknowledging discussions held, document where there was concurrence and where there was non-concurrence and the final agreed plan to move the process on.

unfortunately our jua kali habits persist and so there is no official document that minutes their deliberation and we now have to rely on this he said/he said (hearsay as they call it in legalese)

since there is no document co-signed by the principals demonstrating that consultations took place with or without concurrence, and one of the principals does claim that the consultations were inconclusive and as martha karua puts it, this is a very serious matter and one cannot tire of consulting.

the two must both append a signature to a document finalising the consultation. someone needs to tell kibaki's handlers 'acheni jua kali methods

==

on a side note its very interesting how as kenyans we have turned around so many otherwise simple common everyday langauge into tools for semantic wars (from the jungle to the boardrooms)

generally speaking where there is conflict and or a deadlock the warring parties seek the services of a mediator who will then carry out consultations with a view to reach settllement

but "made in kenya" we turn this on its head, we use consultations to arrive at a deadlock. aaaaissshhh we all need to just start walking on our heads

[kamalet]

Feb 1, 2011 22:41:23 GMT 3 adongo23456 said:

Kamale,

The information out is very clear. The President and the PM started the consultation process. In fact the PM said yesterday that he had told the president that they should discuss the matter after he comes back. That turns out to be true. Then Kibaki does the foolish move of just releasing names after sitting in his office waiting for Raila to call him. In fact Kibaki brought up names that were not even discussed by the two. What then was the point of even trying to consult. What do you call that? It is called a unilateral decision.

My confidence is based on the simple fact that the Speaker is in receipt of two letters telling him different stories. The speaker is not a magician. He has the two letters and the constitution to work with.

This thing will NOT wash. Kibaki can the go to court.

Adongo

Should you not worry about what Raila wrote to Marende on? Was it the statement that he issued calling the appointment unilateral or will it be the one he fumbled with in parliament not sure what names he discussed with Kibaki in the more than two meetings about it?

[adongo23456]

Feb 1, 2011 23:00:11 GMT 3 kamalet said:

Feb 1, 2011 22:41:23 GMT 3 adongo23456 said:

Kamale,

The information out is very clear. The President and the PM started the consultation process. In fact the PM said yesterday that he had told the president that they should discuss the matter after he comes back. That turns out to be true. Then Kibaki does the foolish move of just releasing names after sitting in his office waiting for Raila to call him. In fact Kibaki brought up names that were not even discussed by the two. What then was the point of even trying to consult. What do you call that? It is called a unilateral decision.

My confidence is based on the simple fact that the Speaker is in receipt of two letters telling him different stories. The speaker is not a magician. He has the two letters and the constitution to work with.

This thing will NOT wash. Kibaki can the go to court.

Adongo

Should you not worry about what Raila wrote to Marende on? Was it the statement that he issued calling the appointment unilateral or will it be the one he fumbled with in parliament not sure what names he discussed with Kibaki in the more than two meetings about it?

Kamale

Marende already has the statement from the PM. You can be sure it was put together by some of the best minds in the business. I will probably make the statement available in jukwaa if I can put my hands on it. The big issue here was whether the Speaker has jurisdiction on the matter. Now we have crossed that bridge.

You know what is really lovely. That all of a sudden all that talk about ICC deferral has gone to the dogs. Kenya is once again a laughing stock in the judicial world. The deferral brouhaha is now dead and forgotten. Ocampo can now work quietly behind the scenes and in a few weeks he could have his summons. That is when Kibaki will really hit the roof.

Don't you like it when the right hand is cutting off the left hand of a thief and they don't know it. Let them keep it up.

[job]

Feb 1, 2011 22:44:37 GMT 3 mwalimumkuu said:

Before you get too excited, a few truths will do.

The only excitement I see here is reflected in your incoherrent Railaphobia..... about Raila this and that.

It is not disputable that the ODM case in parliament was as pathetic as the lie they are trying to sell around and as they come.

What I saw in parliament was a clear seperation of nationalists from a bunch of KKk wannabe impressarios. There were well-intentioned contributions from the likes of Martha Karua, Mutula Kilonzo et al., while nefarious justifications for the obvious breach of procedure from KKk cheerleaders.You therefore know which side the pathetics and liars belong.


Martha Karua eloquently stated the fact that incomplete consultations or a breakdown in consultation can never substitute for the requirement of consultation. She passionately asked why the President was "tired" of consulting. The implicit but loaded message is that one can be allergic to (by pretending to be tired) of consultations simply because of a tendency to unilateralism and dictatorial decisions. Martha can witfully hurl stones to Kibaki these days.


Intolerance to consultations or reluctance to consultations almost invariably leads to bad outcomes unacceptable across board. This is the path Kibaki chose to pursue in which Karua, Mutula Kilonzo and others were telling the president to walk back from.

As you clearly heard from the floor of the house and have read from various news outlets, Raila was consulted not once, not twice. What did he tell the whole world on his arrival from Addis? What is he saying now?

It's quite clear your attempt to conflate "not being consulted on CJ's appointment" and "not being consulted at all" for propaganda value fails flat the moment you read Raila's full statement - posted on a seperate thread here.


Raila was quite clear then and now, that the requirement for consultation between him and the president was not met, precisely because they were to engage in these consultations after his return from Addis Ababa. Incomplete consultations, on-going consultations or even a break-down in consultations will never satisfy the constitutional requirement for consultation, period!

The impression created so far is that the contention has only arisen because Riaga Omolo did not get the job Raila has promised him.

That's the impression created only in your head.


Kalonzo has said clearly that when Kibaki knocked off Ojiambo's consideration for the AG, he asked Raila to propose one name only to do the opposite. Kibaki went ahead and appointed Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta's cousin, Githu Muigai to the AG post, suggesting all he was doing was engaging in games.

Raila's earlier proposal to have a foreign CJ appointed was similarly knocked off by Kibaki. When he proposed the appointment of the seniormost local Judge in Kenya, Riaga Omollo, Kibaki similarly knocked off that - for quite obvious reasons. He then pretended to appoint a 'neutral' Visram, who many books counts as a pliant manipulable pick,..quite easy to control by the executive. The clear impression is that of presidential unilateralism, disrespecting the spirit of the new constitution,...thus not meeting the constitutional requirement for consultation.

To me Abdikaddir's and Kioni's input disabused many Kenyans minds.

Partisanship is easy to discern. While pretending to walk the middle of the road, Abdikaddir still owes allegiance to his PNU party, which places him in lofty committee positions. Kioni owes total allegiance to his political patron Uhuru Kenyatta.



The latter presented the clearest case why the word CONSULTATION must now be interpreted both in terms of the letter and spirit of the constitution...after Kioni's confession that his KK accomplices mutilated CoE's word - AGREEMENT - from the draft while at the Naivasha PSC retreat, it's easy to see their motivation then. It was precisely for use in future shenanigans such as these we are witnessing today. Such retrogressive antics will be rejected from many fronts - including the Speaker's Office. Watch this space as we continue this discussion on Thursday!

And by parliament here we do not mean Marende.

The new constitution respects and recognizes the importance and independence of all of its various institutions. You are right, Marende is not Parliament. Marende as Speaker of the House, is an institution in itself - so crucial to our democracy. Stay tuned shortly to appreciate the significance of this institution.


The other institution - Parliament will only play its role, after Speaker Marende filters a clean product to reach it's floor for debate. Isn't it beautiful how new checks-and-balances ensure little shenanigans and gamesmanship in these processes?

However, to me those are not even the issues, what has worried me the most is the fact that CIOC and JSC, do not seem to comprehend their mandate. That is a red flag right there

Where you see redflags, many see progress. Like most impunity barons, ICC supects, KKk dreamers and such, they can only see red flags where the rest of the nation is seeing reforms. You're quite right. The impunity Kings never anticipated their new appointees at CIC and JSC, including past appointees like Gicheru, Wako, Mutula, and even Karua one day declaring to them that they flouted the constitutional process.


I know their throats are clogged by big potatoes, seething in anger at being rebuffed for their unconstitutional moves. If JSC, CIC, the AG, the CJ, the Minister for Justice, the former Minister for Justice, part of LSK, and a great part of the nation all see Kibaki's unconstitutional nomination process, what makes you think the Speaker will see otherwise...or even other genuine Jurists in whatever courts..

[tnk]

Feb 1, 2011 22:41:23 GMT 3 adongo23456 said:

Kamale,

The information out is very clear. The President and the PM started the consultation process. In fact the PM said yesterday that he had told the president that they should discuss the matter after he comes back. That turns out to be true. Then Kibaki does the foolish move of just releasing names after sitting in his office waiting for Raila to call him. In fact Kibaki brought up names that were not even discussed by the two. What then was the point of even trying to consult. What do you call that? It is called a unilateral decision.

My confidence is based on the simple fact that the Speaker is in receipt of two letters telling him different stories. The speaker is not a magician. He has the two letters and the constitution to work with.

This thing will NOT wash. Kibaki can the go to court.

www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=2000028058&cid=4&ttl=Showdown%20as%20Raila,%20Kibaki%20'put%20record%20straight'

[adongo23456]

job & tnk

Even the always Kibaki friendly DN has refused to accept the silly excuses from Kibaki and his little errand boy. That is when you know things are bad for Kibaki.

www.nation.co.ke/oped/Editorial/Let%20reason%20prevail%20in%20divisive%20nominations%20%20%20%20%20/-/440804/1099782/-/27djgc/-/index.html

[tnk]

Feb 2, 2011 0:00:59 GMT 3 adongo23456 said:

job & tnk

Even the always Kibaki friendly DN has refused to accept the silly excuses from Kibaki and his little errand boy. That is when you know things are bad for Kibaki.

www.nation.co.ke/oped/Editorial/Let%20reason%20prevail%20in%20divisive%20nominations%20%20%20%20%20/-/440804/1099782/-/27djgc/-/index.html

link appears to be dead,

too hot maybe?