|
|
Post by tnk on Dec 22, 2011 1:12:29 GMT 3
so final analysis is that the vote negatived a negative, but negating a negative does not equal a positive and therefore leader of HBC must move a motion to make it a positive sometimes you just gotta love the play with semantics but still thats good it gives the MPs a whole month to ....er....er.... "think" (hehehe) this through and come up with a rational decision |
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Dec 22, 2011 1:16:27 GMT 3
looking at the list provided by Mr. Defense, one fails to understand what these MPs are upto. For instance, of what use was Imanyara's protests then take off and fail to vote when his vote was so badly needed? Kenyans will be better served knowing that corruption is the way of life of our leaders. that is so very true. these MPs are supposed to be in that house arguing their points and arriving at solutions, when that fails then they can vote, but they do not participate adequately in the debate and then abscond when their vote is required. 100 out of 210 MPs participated in this exercise that will impact 40 m kenyans for the next several years. do these guys really take their duties seriously? |
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Dec 22, 2011 4:41:05 GMT 3
so final analysis is that the vote negatived a negative, but negating a negative does not equal a positive and therefore leader of HBC must move a motion to make it a positive sometimes you just gotta love the play with semantics but still thats good it gives the MPs a whole month to ....er....er.... "think" (hehehe) this through and come up with a rational decision after reading this report here www.the-star.co.ke/national/national/54892-mps-narrowly-pass-anti-corruption-teamit looks like the MPs did not know / understand what they were voting for lets wait for the hansard to see if that clears up anything |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Dec 22, 2011 9:56:17 GMT 3
Kamale, the jibe about Nyamweya being bent on getting a fellow Kisii in was the tribal tripe. Nyamweya may simply be concerned having seen the Matemu/Moi path of destruction at AFC that this is not the right person for the job. Either way parliament has already adjourned & the backbenchers look hell-bent on locking horns on the Finance Bill. Mwalimumkuu, Midiwo also wasn't very clear on which specific law(s) he was using to argue his case. Although Khalwale said "we don't want to leave Kenya to gangsters", this may be a lost cause. B6k Unfortunately I say it as it is! The opposition by Nyamweya on Matemu's nomination was driven by tribal alliances as was the support of Mumo by Kiema Kilonzo.....That is how our politicians work. In fact when they were going through the process of the Gender commission confirmation, the same tribal sentiments were quite apparent.....! So look at the list of how they voted and tribal sentiment is clear with all kamba MPs voting going for Matemu (Mutava Musyimi being an "Embu" MP and committee member excepted!). |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Dec 22, 2011 10:00:54 GMT 3
Matemu may end up getting a free pass. These guys need each other to fleece effectively. @ Kamale, a breaking story on just why corruption & not theft is the problem. The corruption network around the CMC saga has unveiled how it all works. You start with senior management colluding at CMC to fleece the company & hide their corrupt earnings in foreign bank accounts. The network's shenanigans spread to Andy Forwarder's senior management (thanks to Peter Muthoka who sits on both boards) who in turn over-charge CMC for services; a fleece upon a fleece. When the new MD, Bill Lay, blows the whistle on the network(s) activities & demands a refund from Andy Forwarder's, they lobby their corrupt pal in government, the minister for immigration (a notoriously corrupt fellow who remains a disbarred lawyer thanks to sticky fingers with clients' monies) & Lay's work permit is revoked. So where as you look only at the end result (theft), most of us know it's the entire process (collusion between corrupt corporates & government players) that is the problem. www.nation.co.ke/business/news/-/1006/1293540/-/4fm7llz/-/index.htmlIf you knew who are the bigwigs behind Andy Forwarder's other than Muthoka himself you'd wipe your brow in amazement.... |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Dec 22, 2011 10:19:45 GMT 3
Kamale, there's a reason why George Nyamweya is a nominated MP. He has never won his own constituency. Like Tuju, he's really neither here nor there on the ground so he need not pander to tribal sentiments. He's a Kenyan ;D
As to Kilonzo's circling of the wagons around Matemu, that's what MP's with constituents do best...
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Dec 22, 2011 10:42:34 GMT 3
Matemu may end up getting a free pass. These guys need each other to fleece effectively. @ Kamale, a breaking story on just why corruption & not theft is the problem. The corruption network around the CMC saga has unveiled how it all works. You start with senior management colluding at CMC to fleece the company & hide their corrupt earnings in foreign bank accounts. The network's shenanigans spread to Andy Forwarder's senior management (thanks to Peter Muthoka who sits on both boards) who in turn over-charge CMC for services; a fleece upon a fleece. When the new MD, Bill Lay, blows the whistle on the network(s) activities & demands a refund from Andy Forwarder's, they lobby their corrupt pal in government, the minister for immigration (a notoriously corrupt fellow who remains a disbarred lawyer thanks to sticky fingers with clients' monies) & Lay's work permit is revoked. So where as you look only at the end result (theft), most of us know it's the entire process (collusion between corrupt corporates & government players) that is the problem. www.nation.co.ke/business/news/-/1006/1293540/-/4fm7llz/-/index.htmlIf you knew who are the bigwigs behind Andy Forwarder's other than Muthoka himself you'd wipe your brow in amazement.... B6k I happen to Muthoka and the guys on the other side of the CMC saga. The revoking of the work permit for Lay is outright corruption and taking sides by the minister....he cannot allege that he is getting instructions from shareholders of a public company whilst the work permit application was made by a company! So unless the applicant for the permit decides that the permit is not needed, it cannot be revoked as Kajwang suggests! Now the problem is how do you get the anti-corruption guys to prosecute this case.....? |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Dec 22, 2011 10:45:06 GMT 3
Kamale, there's a reason why George Nyamweya is a nominated MP. He has never won his own constituency. Like Tuju, he's really neither here nor there on the ground so he need not pander to tribal sentiments. He's a Kenyan ;D As to Kilonzo's circling of the wagons around Matemu, that's what MP's with constituents do best... Nyamweya is a nominated MP courtesy of his DP relationship with Kibaki (and his father). But that does not mean that he will not look into the interests of guys from his community just like Kiema Kilonzo! |
|
|
|
Post by job on Dec 23, 2011 7:46:55 GMT 3
GITOBU IMANYARA'S CONTRIBUTION ON THE MATTER(source: The Hansard) Mr. Imanyara: Mr. Speaker, Sir, way back on 4th January, 2006, a distinguished Member of this House, who is now deceased, the hon. Mirugi Kariuki, wrote a letter to the District Criminal Investigations Officer (DCIO), Nakuru. The letter is dated 4th January, 2006. He delivered it to the Provincial Criminal Investigations Office, which opened Inquest File No.5 of 2006. Mr. Kariuki was asking the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) to investigate a company that was working in cahoots with the AFC, where huge sums of money had been misappropriated under circumstances that showed outright fraud on the Kenyan people; the sums of money exceeded Kshs5 billion. I have that dossier here. The police investigated. They took statements from witnesses. They attempted to take statements from some of the nominees that are now being recommended to sit in the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC). The police were prevented. They were unable to move. As recently as 7th June, 2011, one Andrew Nyarindo, signing for the Provincial Criminal Investigations Officer (PCIO), Nakuru, wrote to the Director of CID, a letter dated 7th June, 2011, Ref. No.CID/SECRET/4/4/P/VOL.I, and complained that the CID inquiry that Mr. Kariuki had sought had not been proceeded with. The letter is signed. I will quote one sentence from it. As a lawyer, I have taken the trouble to establish that I am not naming people here for the sake of naming them. He says:- “The reason for not moving forward had to do with the suspects who had worked
together in stealing and concealing facts using their positions and influence in stealing
through proxy. I would not allow availability of the documents and also the manner in
which the said banks and Agricultural Finance Corporation FC collaborated in giving and
disbursing loans which were quite questionable.” Mr. Speaker, Sir, they were not loans. A group of Asians, whose names are
mentioned in this letter, would form companies. They would go to the AFC, borrow
billions of shillings and that money would, through the National Bank of Kenya, be
collected and the loans would be written off. The key player in this investigation is a
person whom we are being asked to recommend to head the EACC.I happen to know the nominees. I have met them socially. I have nothing personal against any of them but we are not talking about personalities. We are not talking about friends. We are talking about the future of Kenya. It is nothing to do with ethnic communities. Apart from the appointment of the Chief Justice of the Republic of Kenya, the next single most important appointment in this country is the head of the EACC. This must be a person in respect of whom we must not have any suspicion. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the CID officers were asking that senior people be allowed to
take statements from Mr. Mumo, together with others, regarding this colossal stealing of
public money running into billions of shillings. The only thing that the officer investigating this matter found out was that, again, there was a conspiracy to even file a civil case in the High Court of Kenya. Again, the person who compromised that civil suit,
in order for the AFC not to be investigated, is the same person we are, again,
recommending that he goes and sits at the EACC. It will be a very sad day, indeed, for
this country if we nominate this person, especially after so many failed attempts and after celebrating the appointment of Dr. Willie Mutunga as Chief Justice of the Republic of Kenya, not because he is from the Kamba community but because of his ability. We do not make appointments in this House on the basis of people’s tribal backgrounds. We look at the competence. Where there are suspicions about any individual whom we are giving the responsibility of heading the EAAC, we must resist. The least we can do is to ask those nominees to look at public interest and consider the matter at hand, if they have conscience. Why should they subject themselves to this hearing, knowing well that these are facts you cannot hide? You cannot suppress this information. Mr. Speaker, Sir, Inspector Irungu is prepared to swear an affidavit on the frustrations he faced when he was taking a statement. Here is an officer, telling the Director of CID: “Please, move in to protect the public interest” and here, we are saying that we shut our eyes to all this and allow these nominees to go through. It will be a great shame to this House, and I will never agree to be associated with their approval. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I hereby table the letter dated 7th June, 2011. I have referred to the reference. The matter was referred to the then Attorney-General, Amos Wako, way back on 30th November, 2007. The reference is AG/CR/236/3/623/4. Again, this raises those issues. The Attorney-General recommended, “Carry out further investigations so that you can ensure that there is sufficient evidence to convict these people.” Despite these recommendations by the Attorney-General, no action was taken. With the appointment of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), some well-meaning patriotic Kenyan CID Officer is making a plea on behalf of the Kenyan people, “Please, carry out investigations. These are the facts and this is the amount of money.” There are cheques amounting to Kshs24million, Kshs18 million and so on. Details of accounts are given to the last cent and names are also given. (Applause) All these things are dated and I wish to table this letter particularly for those who say that we should support these nominees. They should read this and take their time. They need to ask whether these are the people we want to head the Ethics and Anti- Corruption Commission. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I support.
|
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Dec 23, 2011 8:26:17 GMT 3
GITOBU IMANYARA'S CONTRIBUTION ON THE MATTER(source: The Hansard) Mr. Imanyara: Mr. Speaker, Sir, way back on 4th January, 2006, a distinguished Member of this House, who is now deceased, the hon. Mirugi Kariuki, wrote a letter to the District Criminal Investigations Officer (DCIO), Nakuru. The letter is dated 4th January, 2006. He delivered it to the Provincial Criminal Investigations Office, which opened Inquest File No.5 of 2006. Mr. Kariuki was asking the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) to investigate a company that was working in cahoots with the AFC, where huge sums of money had been misappropriated under circumstances that showed outright fraud on the Kenyan people; the sums of money exceeded Kshs5 billion. I have that dossier here. The police investigated. They took statements from witnesses. They attempted to take statements from some of the nominees that are now being recommended to sit in the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC). The police were prevented. They were unable to move. As recently as 7th June, 2011, one Andrew Nyarindo, signing for the Provincial Criminal Investigations Officer (PCIO), Nakuru, wrote to the Director of CID, a letter dated 7th June, 2011, Ref. No.CID/SECRET/4/4/P/VOL.I, and complained that the CID inquiry that Mr. Kariuki had sought had not been proceeded with. The letter is signed. I will quote one sentence from it. As a lawyer, I have taken the trouble to establish that I am not naming people here for the sake of naming them. He says:- “The reason for not moving forward had to do with the suspects who had worked together in stealing and concealing facts using their positions and influence in stealing through proxy. I would not allow availability of the documents and also the manner in which the said banks and Agricultural Finance Corporation FC collaborated in giving and disbursing loans which were quite questionable.” Mr. Speaker, Sir, they were not loans. A group of Asians, whose names are mentioned in this letter, would form companies. They would go to the AFC, borrow billions of shillings and that money would, through the National Bank of Kenya, be collected and the loans would be written off. The key player in this investigation is a
person whom we are being asked to recommend to head the EACC.I happen to know the nominees. I have met them socially. I have nothing personal against any of them but we are not talking about personalities. We are not talking about friends. We are talking about the future of Kenya. It is nothing to do with ethnic communities. Apart from the appointment of the Chief Justice of the Republic of Kenya, the next single most important appointment in this country is the head of the EACC. This must be a person in respect of whom we must not have any suspicion. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the CID officers were asking that senior people be allowed to take statements from Mr. Mumo, together with others, regarding this colossal stealing of public money running into billions of shillings. The only thing that the officer investigating this matter found out was that, again, there was a conspiracy to even file a civil case in the High Court of Kenya. Again, the person who compromised that civil suit, in order for the AFC not to be investigated, is the same person we are, again,
recommending that he goes and sits at the EACC. It will be a very sad day, indeed, for this country if we nominate this person, especially after so many failed attempts and after celebrating the appointment of Dr. Willie Mutunga as Chief Justice of the Republic of Kenya, not because he is from the Kamba community but because of his ability. We do not make appointments in this House on the basis of people’s tribal backgrounds. We look at the competence. Where there are suspicions about any individual whom we are giving the responsibility of heading the EAAC, we must resist. The least we can do is to ask those nominees to look at public interest and consider the matter at hand, if they have conscience. Why should they subject themselves to this hearing, knowing well that these are facts you cannot hide? You cannot suppress this information. Mr. Speaker, Sir, Inspector Irungu is prepared to swear an affidavit on the frustrations he faced when he was taking a statement. Here is an officer, telling the Director of CID: “Please, move in to protect the public interest” and here, we are saying that we shut our eyes to all this and allow these nominees to go through. It will be a great shame to this House, and I will never agree to be associated with their approval. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I hereby table the letter dated 7th June, 2011. I have referred to the reference. The matter was referred to the then Attorney-General, Amos Wako, way back on 30th November, 2007. The reference is AG/CR/236/3/623/4. Again, this raises those issues. The Attorney-General recommended, “Carry out further investigations so that you can ensure that there is sufficient evidence to convict these people.” Despite these recommendations by the Attorney-General, no action was taken. With the appointment of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), some well-meaning patriotic Kenyan CID Officer is making a plea on behalf of the Kenyan people, “Please, carry out investigations. These are the facts and this is the amount of money.” There are cheques amounting to Kshs24million, Kshs18 million and so on. Details of accounts are given to the last cent and names are also given. (Applause) All these things are dated and I wish to table this letter particularly for those who say that we should support these nominees. They should read this and take their time. They need to ask whether these are the people we want to head the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I support. thanks for this update this is exactly what am talking about. am very glad for people like imanyara. in retrospect i now fully understand why he choose to stay away from the voting process. and this underscores exactly what i meant by voting being a very mediocre decision making process. no amount of voting can be used to sanitize criminal and corrupt officers. parliament has become another conveyor belt for sanitizing and recycling corrupt officials. kudo's to imanyara and those like him who stand for truth. how did that vetting committee come up with this guy? |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Dec 23, 2011 15:34:24 GMT 3
tnk/Job
Actually this report was tabled in the house in a blue bound document and was being circulated in the house. Hon. Dr. Shaaban had this to say:
The Minister for Gender, Children and Social Development (Dr. Shaaban):
Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to say that what has been brought in the Report and what
has been alleged on the Floor of the House are two different things. What is surprising -
and that is why I am opposing this Motion - is that all the major issues about Speedman,
the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), a letter that was never an issue in the
Report and things that were never raised at the Committee level.
I have gone through what Mr. Imanyara has tabled and, with all due respect to this
honourable House, because we can all read English and understand it, the issues which
were being questioned at the CID’s office, were things to do with the Narok Branch and
Matemo’s name was not part of the report. I beg to table.
(Dr. Shaaban laid the report on the Table)
At least that clarifies where Imanyara was coming from...hopeful no one reads the report!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2011 19:27:12 GMT 3
GITOBU IMANYARA'S CONTRIBUTION ON THE MATTER(source: The Hansard) Mr. Imanyara: Mr. Speaker, Sir, way back on 4th January, 2006, a distinguished Member of this House, who is now deceased, the hon. Mirugi Kariuki, wrote a letter to the District Criminal Investigations Officer (DCIO), Nakuru. The letter is dated 4th January, 2006. He delivered it to the Provincial Criminal Investigations Office, which opened Inquest File No.5 of 2006. Mr. Kariuki was asking the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) to investigate a company that was working in cahoots with the AFC, where huge sums of money had been misappropriated under circumstances that showed outright fraud on the Kenyan people; the sums of money exceeded Kshs5 billion. I have that dossier here. The police investigated. They took statements from witnesses. They attempted to take statements from some of the nominees that are now being recommended to sit in the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC). The police were prevented. They were unable to move. As recently as 7th June, 2011, one Andrew Nyarindo, signing for the Provincial Criminal Investigations Officer (PCIO), Nakuru, wrote to the Director of CID, a letter dated 7th June, 2011, Ref. No.CID/SECRET/4/4/P/VOL.I, and complained that the CID inquiry that Mr. Kariuki had sought had not been proceeded with. The letter is signed. I will quote one sentence from it. As a lawyer, I have taken the trouble to establish that I am not naming people here for the sake of naming them. He says:- “The reason for not moving forward had to do with the suspects who had worked together in stealing and concealing facts using their positions and influence in stealing through proxy. I would not allow availability of the documents and also the manner in which the said banks and Agricultural Finance Corporation FC collaborated in giving and disbursing loans which were quite questionable.” Mr. Speaker, Sir, they were not loans. A group of Asians, whose names are mentioned in this letter, would form companies. They would go to the AFC, borrow billions of shillings and that money would, through the National Bank of Kenya, be collected and the loans would be written off. The key player in this investigation is a
person whom we are being asked to recommend to head the EACC.I happen to know the nominees. I have met them socially. I have nothing personal against any of them but we are not talking about personalities. We are not talking about friends. We are talking about the future of Kenya. It is nothing to do with ethnic communities. Apart from the appointment of the Chief Justice of the Republic of Kenya, the next single most important appointment in this country is the head of the EACC. This must be a person in respect of whom we must not have any suspicion. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the CID officers were asking that senior people be allowed to take statements from Mr. Mumo, together with others, regarding this colossal stealing of public money running into billions of shillings. The only thing that the officer investigating this matter found out was that, again, there was a conspiracy to even file a civil case in the High Court of Kenya. Again, the person who compromised that civil suit, in order for the AFC not to be investigated, is the same person we are, again,
recommending that he goes and sits at the EACC. It will be a very sad day, indeed, for this country if we nominate this person, especially after so many failed attempts and after celebrating the appointment of Dr. Willie Mutunga as Chief Justice of the Republic of Kenya, not because he is from the Kamba community but because of his ability. We do not make appointments in this House on the basis of people’s tribal backgrounds. We look at the competence. Where there are suspicions about any individual whom we are giving the responsibility of heading the EAAC, we must resist. The least we can do is to ask those nominees to look at public interest and consider the matter at hand, if they have conscience. Why should they subject themselves to this hearing, knowing well that these are facts you cannot hide? You cannot suppress this information. Mr. Speaker, Sir, Inspector Irungu is prepared to swear an affidavit on the frustrations he faced when he was taking a statement. Here is an officer, telling the Director of CID: “Please, move in to protect the public interest” and here, we are saying that we shut our eyes to all this and allow these nominees to go through. It will be a great shame to this House, and I will never agree to be associated with their approval. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I hereby table the letter dated 7th June, 2011. I have referred to the reference. The matter was referred to the then Attorney-General, Amos Wako, way back on 30th November, 2007. The reference is AG/CR/236/3/623/4. Again, this raises those issues. The Attorney-General recommended, “Carry out further investigations so that you can ensure that there is sufficient evidence to convict these people.” Despite these recommendations by the Attorney-General, no action was taken. With the appointment of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), some well-meaning patriotic Kenyan CID Officer is making a plea on behalf of the Kenyan people, “Please, carry out investigations. These are the facts and this is the amount of money.” There are cheques amounting to Kshs24million, Kshs18 million and so on. Details of accounts are given to the last cent and names are also given. (Applause) All these things are dated and I wish to table this letter particularly for those who say that we should support these nominees. They should read this and take their time. They need to ask whether these are the people we want to head the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I support. thanks for this update this is exactly what am talking about. am very glad for people like imanyara. in retrospect i now fully understand why he choose to stay away from the voting process. and this underscores exactly what i meant by voting being a very mediocre decision making process. no amount of voting can be used to sanitize criminal and corrupt officers. parliament has become another conveyor belt for sanitizing and recycling corrupt officials. kudo's to imanyara and those like him who stand for truth. how did that vetting committee come up with this guy? |
|
|
|
Post by job on May 10, 2012 19:14:52 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by stibin on May 11, 2012 10:37:35 GMT 3
With or without Matemu Kibaki administration is likely to make history as the most corrupt and really it is very difficult to pick a single ministry in the bloated cabinet that hasn’t engaged in some big corruption. The recent one is where some officials are accused of stealing 200 million from the National Youth Fund Kit. In particular feasting on the public coffers appears to have reached the highest peak as election date draws near.
It’s even surprising the so called ‘principals’ no longer pretend to be fighting the widespread graft. They’ve resigned to the fate, haven’t they?
|
|
|
|
Post by akinyi2005 on May 16, 2012 16:44:09 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by job on May 16, 2012 16:59:14 GMT 3
The Judiciary is one arm of government that can save our Country. In future, history may judge the Mutunga Court (era) as one of the key pillars that changed Kenya. Let's see how all these cases pan out. |
|
|
|
Post by mzee on Sept 20, 2012 14:53:34 GMT 3
His appointment nullified. www.nation.co.ke/News/Court+nullifies+Matemu+appointment+/-/1056/1512700/-/13nbh9xz/-/index.htmlHomeNews News Court nullifies Matemu appointment as anti graft boss Share Bookmark Print Email Rating The appointment of Mumo Matemu as the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission chairman has been nullified. The appointment of Mumo Matemu as the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission chairman has been nullified September 20, 2012 NATION MEDIA GROUP By PAMELA CHEPKEMEI Posted Thursday, September 20 2012 at 13:47 In Summary High Court rules that Mr Matemu's conduct has raised serious integrity issues. The appointment of Mumo Matemu as the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission (EACC) chairman has been nullified. The High Court ruled Thursday that Mr Matemu's conduct has raised serious integrity issues. The court found that he was unsuitable to assume the office of EACC chairman. |
|
|
|
Post by federa on Sept 20, 2012 22:16:08 GMT 3
This is a very interesting ruling by the three judge bench, stressing that they are out to protect and uphold chapter six of the constitution. I seem to recall arguments being advanced by sympathizers of two people well known to us that the courts cannot interprete chapter six of the constitution without the enabling legislation, and a lot of energy was therefore expended in parliament to make this enabling legislation 'friendly' to these two people. Well, here is a three judge bench declaring that they are out to 'protect and uphold' the constitution. If I was one of these two gentlemen facing even more serious integrity issues than Mr. Matemu, I would be very afraid. www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000066555&story_title=Court-annuls-Mumo-Matemu-appointment |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Sept 21, 2012 9:42:48 GMT 3
I have a problem with the thinking of the judges in this case.
The judges have been quite elaborate in their interpretation of Chapter Six of the constitution regarding integrity. I have read and re-read the chapter on leadership and integrity and I am quite lost at what was the basis of the ruling by the judges.
The Leadership and Integrity Act in my view can only apply to state and public officers once they are appointed.
Section 5 (3) of the EACC Act (pursuant to Chapter 6, Section 79 of the constitution) provides for the acts that disqualify one from being appointed as chairman, whilst subsections 1 and 2 list out the qualifications of the chairman.
The process of nomination by the president and parliamentary approval is well documented in the Act.
Where I am having an issue is the basis of the rejection of Matemu by the court on account of allegations of loss of money by AFC when he was legal officer. Now that is all well if indeed the money was actually lost and he was criminally culpable. The court in its ruling has made reference to these "allegations" as the basis of their rejection of the nomination.
Now looking at the entire list of laws applicable in the Matemu appointment the oversight on the executive is vested in Parliament rather than the courts which means that if Parliament approves an appointment the process should be a finality. My view is that the jurisdiction of the courts should only be on the process of following the law on appointment, i.e. was the law followed in how the appointment was made? The process of vetting is a subjective process and the oversight by parliament is intended to ensure no excess by the executive. Where the law provided for consultation between the president and the PM and this particular element was missed, the courts have rightfully come and corrected this. In the case of the EACC commissioners the law in appointing and vetting was followed to the letter.
This ruling, which I think the executive should contest, means that one arm of government can overrule two other arms of government in what can lead to a very dangerous constitutional competition! The Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) Act guides parliament on how to perform its duties.
What I would have expected is that the judges would have gone through all these Acts and come up with the decision that denies them the power to take the decision that they took.
In any case a different sitting of the High Court had a different view of the appointment of the DPP when they were unable to reverse his appointment for 'crimes committed' prior to his appointment!
|
|
|
|
Post by mugabe on Sept 21, 2012 10:24:28 GMT 3
aha! the defender of impunity has spoken again. over to his alter ego Kibe Muigai
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Sept 21, 2012 10:50:05 GMT 3
And then Uhuru and Ruto imagine that CAP6 of the constitution applies to others and not them.
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Sept 21, 2012 11:11:49 GMT 3
And then Uhuru and Ruto imagine that CAP6 of the constitution applies to others and not them. Phil Have you read the Leadership and integrity Act? I suggest you actually do.... |
|
|
|
Post by malkia on Sept 21, 2012 15:55:03 GMT 3
I have a problem with the thinking of the judges in this case. The judges have been quite elaborate in their interpretation of Chapter Six of the constitution regarding integrity. I have read and re-read the chapter on leadership and integrity and I am quite lost at what was the basis of the ruling by the judges. The Leadership and Integrity Act in my view can only apply to state and public officers once they are appointed. Section 5 (3) of the EACC Act (pursuant to Chapter 6, Section 79 of the constitution) provides for the acts that disqualify one from being appointed as chairman, whilst subsections 1 and 2 list out the qualifications of the chairman. The process of nomination by the president and parliamentary approval is well documented in the Act. Where I am having an issue is the basis of the rejection of Matemu by the court on account of allegations of loss of money by AFC when he was legal officer. Now that is all well if indeed the money was actually lost and he was criminally culpable. The court in its ruling has made reference to these "allegations" as the basis of their rejection of the nomination. Now looking at the entire list of laws applicable in the Matemu appointment the oversight on the executive is vested in Parliament rather than the courts which means that if Parliament approves an appointment the process should be a finality. My view is that the jurisdiction of the courts should only be on the process of following the law on appointment, i.e. was the law followed in how the appointment was made? The process of vetting is a subjective process and the oversight by parliament is intended to ensure no excess by the executive. Where the law provided for consultation between the president and the PM and this particular element was missed, the courts have rightfully come and corrected this. In the case of the EACC commissioners the law in appointing and vetting was followed to the letter. This ruling, which I think the executive should contest, means that one arm of government can overrule two other arms of government in what can lead to a very dangerous constitutional competition! The Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) Act guides parliament on how to perform its duties. What I would have expected is that the judges would have gone through all these Acts and come up with the decision that denies them the power to take the decision that they took. In any case a different sitting of the High Court had a different view of the appointment of the DPP when they were unable to reverse his appointment for 'crimes committed' prior to his appointment! It may be helpful to understand the role of the judiciary and the preeminence of the Constitution of Kenya. It is the job of the Judiciary, to interpret the law. The Constitution requires that this function is exercised independently and with finality by the Judiciary. The Constitution provides, in Chapter 10, Article 160 (1) that: "In the exercise of judicial authority, the Judiciary, as constituted by Article 161 shall be subject only to this Constitution and the law and shall not be subject to the control or direction of any person or authority". So they judges are not subject to executive authority or control especially where such authority is contrary to the Constitution. It is also important to note that the Executive is subject to the Constitution, again The Constitution of Kenya Article 129(1) "Executive authority derives from the people of Kenya and shall be exercised in accordance with this Constitution."You may not like the decision but it is legal and consistent with the principle of Constitutionalism. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Sept 21, 2012 16:17:09 GMT 3
It may be helpful to understand the role of the judiciary and the preeminence of the Constitution of Kenya. It is the job of the Judiciary, to interpret the law. The Constitution requires that this function is exercised independently and with finality by the Judiciary. The Constitution provides, in Chapter 10, Article 160 (1) that: "In the exercise of judicial authority, the Judiciary, as constituted by Article 161 shall be subject only to this Constitution and the law and shall not be subject to the control or direction of any person or authority". So they judges are not subject to executive authority or control especially where such authority is contrary to the Constitution. It is also important to note that the Executive is subject to the Constitution, again The Constitution of Kenya Article 129(1) "Executive authority derives from the people of Kenya and shall be exercised in accordance with this Constitution."You may not like the decision but it is legal and consistent with the principle of Constitutionalism. Malkia No one is questioning the authority of the judiciary or its independence so that is not the issue! The point under debate is the fact that first there are three arms of government here and the constitution does provide for separation of the powers. Secondly, in its interpretation of the law, the judiciary can only work with what it has on its hands, i.e. the law. It cannot create any law and can only correct an erroneous law by declaring it inconsistent with the constitution! Perhaps you may need to re-read where I was coming from. |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Sept 25, 2012 13:18:27 GMT 3
This is a very interesting ruling by the three judge bench, stressing that they are out to protect and uphold chapter six of the constitution. I seem to recall arguments being advanced by sympathizers of two people well known to us that the courts cannot interprete chapter six of the constitution without the enabling legislation, and a lot of energy was therefore expended in parliament to make this enabling legislation 'friendly' to these two people. Well, here is a three judge bench declaring that they are out to 'protect and uphold' the constitution. If I was one of these two gentlemen facing even more serious integrity issues than Mr. Matemu, I would be very afraid. www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000066555&story_title=Court-annuls-Mumo-Matemu-appointmentFedera, The ruling is indeed ' interesting', but I am afraid the standard article does not recognise its due significance. I you, or someone else could find the total excerpt of the ruling, please post it in whole on Jukwaa. THE MATEMU ARREST.Let me first explain my near layman' s use of the term arrest in law. An arrest, jurisprudentially, is a landmark ruling on a precarious or sensitive matter. Sensitive as in complicated and involving gigantic oppositional interests, commercial or otherwise... [] political. The ramifications are thus far and wide, game-changers. The arrest as a ruling of a court, serves as a benchmark, and sets a precedent upon which later, similar cases may be held against. An arrest therefore, to serve her pretence, must be groundedly reasoned, thought out in law and coherent within the legal philosophy of the political order in the background. Otherwise it does not stand the test of time, can never be a precedent, and would be annulled in the next appeal. Now Judges Joel Ngugi, Joel Odunga, and Ngugi Mumbi, have set the bar with their reasoning in this case. --But the case is going to the court of appeal, and so c ould be overturned, given the mental corruption prevalent in our land. The three judges explain, that the provisions of chapter 6, the intergrity clauses on those seeking to occupy public offices, are not just:
1. mere suggestions 2. superfluous points 3. merely ornamental 4. far from being mere lofty statements of aspiration or intent, they are core and fundamental.
B: THe judges write: ' Kenyans were singularly desirous of cleaning up OUR politics and governance structures, by insisting on high standards of personal integrity among those seeking to guide us.'THIS IN MY OPINION IS AN ARREST. A BENCHMARK interpretation of Chapter six. ICsThat reasoning, has to be undone by the appeal court in order to re-instate Matemu. And that reasoning must send a shiver up the spine of some candidates who are ensnared in the suit brought to court by the activists Neto and Mwararia and Abubakr and Momanyi of Kenya Youth Parliament. The judges noted Matemu was implicated in shady deals as a legal officer at the AFC. --aside question is, how did he pass the vetting standards? and how come the two principals picked him inspite of this clear statement of: MATEMU WAS A CORRUPT LAWYER AT AFC! nb: Lawyer Muite Paul [presidential candidate??] and LSK chair Eric Mutua, and Grace Maingi of FIDA, issued statements commemorating this ruling by the court as impressive and standard-setting. Essentially a benchmark. NB: a court rules thursday whether the suit originally brought against Uhuruto by the activists Neto and co will include the expansion! The suit was challenging UK$Ruto' s eligibility to run for PORK, but was later denounced by the original activists when it was extended to include Raila and Kalonzo. The Judges will be Isaac Lenaola ; Mohamed Warsame [he of the Miguna typology], and Filomena Mwilu. It is a ruling to watch in ITS REASONING. Thus to shed light upon it in the background of the MATEMU ARREST. |
|
