|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Aug 26, 2013 19:10:17 GMT 3
The JSC has resolved not to appear before the parliamentary committee that had summoned it! This should be a battle royal in legal knowledge: what are the limits in powers of the parliamentary commissions?
--Who is immune from them and why?
---If the JSC can not appear before them, why should the CEOs of NCPB, KPLC, or anybody else who does not feel like, ever appear before them?
And are not Ndegwa Muhoro when he was CID chief, and DGI Gichangi, vindicated in retrospect, that last year it was I think [on the scandal of he fake British embassy letterhead letter] they laughed at the parliamentary summons!?
|
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Aug 26, 2013 21:30:58 GMT 3
The JSC is the judges' employer.
The operation of the judiciary does not come under Parliament. It is indeed independent, and must remain so.
Therefore JSC is not answerable to Parliament and cannot be summon to appear before its committee.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Aug 26, 2013 22:09:50 GMT 3
The JSC is the judges' employer. The operation of the judiciary does not come under Parliament. It is indeed independent, and must remain so. Therefore JSC is not answerable to Parliament and cannot be summon to appear before its committee. However constitutionally independent you are or deem yourself, and you are a den of corruption, and a scourge of parasites as this JSC is now factually documented to be, it would be foolish to rely on law to for your protection. There are limtis to self delusion. Politics is another ball game. I remember Ghana coup-leader Jerry Rawlings many decades ago suspending the constitution, arresting and executing High-Court Judges.And the people? They people were yelling: KILL THEM ALL! corrupt immoral creatures! There is politics to law, and there is a phase of raw power struggle in politics, where the constitution is just another football. --The other day Cheserem had to defer, or have her body disbanded by the Mpigs, insistent on their KSh. 1.5M/m. I seen so many constitutions suspended in my life ---I believe that Egyption General just that the other day too-- I always ask myself, will this one last like the American one? +200 years coup free, or, with camels like Ibrahim and Warsame, and charlatans like Ahmednassir and Mutunga at is helms as custodians, is ours our judicial order doomed to convulse severally, and even perish prematurely!? Is there some noise about a referendum in the republic already? |
|
|
|
Post by OtishOtish on Aug 26, 2013 22:32:34 GMT 3
Jakaswanga:
This could well turn out to nothing more than an eating arrangement gone bad. But, assuming the report is correct, look at the number of meetings, and consider that there are only 52 weeks in a year!
Anyway, the MPs have their committee meetings, and last I heard the rules were to be changed, to increase the number of committees, so that each MP could sit on two. Are you so mean as to want to deny the esteemed commissioners there share of eatings meetings?
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Aug 27, 2013 8:59:39 GMT 3
The altercation between the parliamentary legal committee and the JSC is one unnecessary fight. The summoning of the JSC by the committee is right in law, but the timing is wrong. As the Shollei case involves matters of financial impropriety within the Judiciary, then Parliament has legal oversight. The problem I have is that the legal committee should have waited for the JSC to complete its internal process before summoning it. And that is why I cannot understand this clamour for judicial independence as the legal committee is not investigating any of the judicial decisions of the judiciary which must remain independent!
Having made a case for the legal committee, apart from the timing problem, the entire approach seemed to take a tribal route with Chepkonga appearing to be more motivated by Shollei's background than what she was accused of! The idea of summoning the JSC to investigate the relationship between Shollei and individual members was way off the mark as that was not what Shollei had been shown the door for.
So unnecessary as is the whole saga, we are going to see a situation that was a simple matter turned into a pissing context.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Aug 27, 2013 11:24:14 GMT 3
Kamalet
I think you are mistaken.
Under Article 173(3) (4) the Chief Registrar prepares the annual budget of the judiciary, places before the JSC for approval and then transmits it to parliament for approval.
Parliament allocates funds to the Judiciary. Article 173 of the constitution creates the Judiciary Fund that is administered by the Chief registrar of the Judiciary.
This frees the finances of the judiciary from the control and manipulation of the executive or parliamentary arms of government.
The overall supervision on how the Judiciary uses its funds lays with the JSC, which has powers to appoint or dismiss any of the officers who will manage that fund, besides judges.
This has done away with the previous process in which the Treasury could ultimately decide on the budget of the judiciary and would tie knots around the judiciary.
The dispute, as I understand it, is based on decisions made by the Registrar about properties. She is therefore answerable to the JSC. A sub-committee of the JSC, which has an oversight of this matter, have suspended her pending investigation. This matter is an employment dispute, where an employee of the JSC is accused of misconduct.
It is therefore not for the Parliamentary Sub-Committee to interfere on employment matter under the JSC when dealing with its employee.
Further, it was not for the sub-committee’s responsibility to question the JSC (which includes the Chief Justice) on how its deals with its employees. It is open for the JSC to first establish if impropriety took place and if established to take action, as an employer.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Aug 27, 2013 20:46:39 GMT 3
As the Shollei case involves matters of financial impropriety within the Judiciary, then Parliament has legal oversight. ............ So unnecessary as is the whole saga, we are going to see a situation that was a simple matter turned into a pissing context.Kamalet, It was bound to be a pissing contest which, at the end, would expose the JSC really for what it is. A den of graft. On second thoughts after reading your comment --on how much egg was coming the face's way  , they asked Judge Majanja if they could be allowed to resolve the issue out of court, and out of the the public limelight with its intense scrutiny! www.nation.co.ke/news/Court+allows+JSC+to+seek+Shollei+solution+/-/1056/1969772/-/d9r2q5z/-/index.htmlMajanja promptly agreed! Your crouching tigress revealed her claws, and our roaring lions went tame, for the moment. Now let us wait for the revenge of Chepkonga and the Parliamentary Legal affairs committee which has been ignored. I am told the revelation of how much they earn on sitting allowance, warranted an inquiry from a very high source. I would guess it is not Kimemia, but Trouble-shooter Kinyua, former PS currently the special advisor on state finances to the president! Funny, the independent body JSC, the overseer, cringing in court. Better Majanja, one of them, than the Mpigs in parliament! |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Aug 28, 2013 9:52:08 GMT 3
The JSC is the judges' employer. The operation of the judiciary does not come under Parliament. It is indeed independent, and must remain so. Therefore JSC is not answerable to Parliament and cannot be summon to appear before its committee. Please explain why the JSC needs to go to parliament to justify their budget before it is approved by parliament.......surely someone must have oversight! Independence does not extend to the administrative functions of the judiciary which are checked by parliament - rather than the executive. |
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Aug 28, 2013 10:31:15 GMT 3
The JSC is the judges' employer. The operation of the judiciary does not come under Parliament. It is indeed independent, and must remain so. Therefore JSC is not answerable to Parliament and cannot be summon to appear before its committee. Please explain why the JSC needs to go to parliament to justify their budget before it is approved by parliament.......surely someone must have oversight! Independence does not extend to the administrative functions of the judiciary which are checked by parliament - rather than the executive. That is a very weak point. You will remember in the Budget Allocation, the Presidency are allocated funds by Parliament, indeed anytime the Presidency wants extra money it has to go to Parliament to seek it, but does that mean Parliament has an oversight over the operation of the Presidency? Of course, not. Parliament is mandated to distribute the national funds equitably because funds are finite. When Parliament has decides on priorities and allocated funds, i.e. distributed, then it is the recipient especially body with independent functions who are tasked with how to implement their program including whom to employ, building to occupy, and therefore the oversight of how the money is used. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Aug 28, 2013 11:10:57 GMT 3
Please explain why the JSC needs to go to parliament to justify their budget before it is approved by parliament.......surely someone must have oversight! Independence does not extend to the administrative functions of the judiciary which are checked by parliament - rather than the executive. That is a very weak point. You will remember in the Budget Allocation, the Presidency are allocated funds by Parliament, indeed anytime the Presidency wants extra money it has to go to Parliament to seek it, but does that mean Parliament has an oversight over the operation of the Presidency? Of course, not. Parliament is mandated to distribute the national funds equitably because funds are finite. When Parliament has decides on priorities and allocated funds, i.e. distributed, then it is the recipient especially body with independent functions who are tasked with how to implement their program including whom to employ, building to occupy, and therefore the oversight of how the money is used. Sadik Of course there is parliamentary oversight in how money it has voted for is spent. Parliament approves budgets for the judiciary, the executive (rather than the presidency) and retains oversight through the PAC on how those funds were spent! Why does the controller and auditor general only report to parliament? Just ask yourself mate! |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Aug 28, 2013 18:31:20 GMT 3
The JSC is the judges' employer. The operation of the judiciary does not come under Parliament. It is indeed independent, and must remain so. Therefore JSC is not answerable to Parliament and cannot be summon to appear before its committee. Please explain why the JSC needs to go to parliament to justify their budget before it is approved by parliament....... surely someone must have oversight! Independence does not extend to the administrative functions of the judiciary which are checked by parliament - rather than the executive. I think you have already clinched the argument by your clarity of thought here. In that you have made the KILLER distinction. It is so important, I feel the need to wax some more on it, even if only repeating your content! ----These lawyers are being disingenuous, mixing themselves up. They are telling us things far from reality. The CJ and the JSC have [also] ADMINSTRATIVE FUNCTIONS. These are distinct and separate from court sittings, or sittings of a jurisprudential nature where the interpretation of law shall require due independence mind or the body! ---in so far as that is possible in frameworks like Kenya. A large segment of the administrative responsibilities revolve around MONEY. So big we call it FINANCE. Now, the moment one, or a body, is custodian of tens of millions of not a billion of PUBLIC MONEY, they cease to use the defence INDEPENDENT, when confronted with issues of FINANCIAL IRREGULARITY. With public money, it is not trust me, I make the best decisions for you, Wanjiku. No way, one must be subject to budgetary oversight. One must be subject to grillings by various committees, about choices made, projects funded and protocols of expenditure! This case, in the specific case of our JSC, is not a matter of judicial independence, it is a matter of financial malfeasance, brought to light by none other than a significant member of this body, Gladys Shollei. Judicial independence is then a bullsh!t defence. Shollei's suspension had to do with money and other gravy-train linked deals, and in her defence, she un-cocked a can of worms. These having nothing to do with the 'speaking of justice in court' which is the corner stone of the principle of independence in the judiciary. The can of worms she opened, can not be resealed with the argument 'we are independent  and above parliament. No, they are corrupt and full of shady deals. Therefore just ordinary criminals.Criminals can only sue for immunity in legally juvenile countries like Kenya. Professing their independence is too much of a stretch. But as I always intimate, that would be the day I will catch CJ Mutunga thinking straight! Crooked man! Even within the sector itself, the legal fraternity knows the sitting allowance is being used as a cash cow! And some say they have informed the CJ so! When it comes to policemen taking ksh. 200 'standing allowance' or toll from motorists, we are all up in condemnation, but when the JSC with even a more exorbitant, exploitative 'sitting allowance' regime... then they are independent! Damn it! traffic cops are independent too then! |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Aug 28, 2013 18:40:46 GMT 3
Kamalet The dispute, as I understand it, is based on decisions made by the Registrar about properties. She is therefore answerable to the JSC. A sub-committee of the JSC, which has an oversight of this matter, have suspended her pending investigation. This matter is an employment dispute, where an employee of the JSC is accused of misconduct. But now that there are internal personal financial disputes, that is a conflict of indvidual interests, where the chairs of some of these oversight sub-committees are the interested, conflict parties, then we speak of a compromised process that shall require an EXTERNAL interference to objectivise the case. Otherwise the body just implodes into its own greed, emotive personal financial power-struggles, and greed-informed purges. |
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Aug 29, 2013 10:17:38 GMT 3
If the Presidency is not under Parliamentary oversight, a fact you agree with, one wonders why should the Judiciary?
As I understand it that the duty to oversee public funds usage is that of the Auditor-General, not Parliament.
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Aug 29, 2013 10:24:06 GMT 3
If the Presidency is not under Parliamentary oversight, a fact you agree with, one wonders why should the Judiciary? As I understand it that the duty to oversee public funds usage is that of the Auditor-General, not Parliament. Sadik I did not agree since there is budget for Presidency alone as this is under the National Government or Executive like other government departments. The Auditor General audits the accounts of all entities and reports to Parliament who get the departments to explain themselves away before the PAC. THE CAG reports to the National Assembly.......still not communicating? |
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Aug 29, 2013 11:00:16 GMT 3
My view is that the Judiciary is independent. It must therefore be allowed to operated freely from any constraint. Yes, Parliament every year mandates funds to the Judiciary under their Accounting Officer who is also the Registrar.
On the audit, I agree the Auditor-General undertakes audits of all public funds, but do they only report to Parliament? I know that auditor-general audits Parliaments accounts, and to ask them to report their finding to Parliament, the same body they audited, will be ridiculous.
As far as I understand several bodies can under the Constitution investigate what happened in the Registrar case, none of which is mandated to report to Parliament,
1. Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission to investigate the corruption allegations,
2. Auditor - General to investigate financial dealings,
3. Public Procurement Oversight Authority to Investigate procurement issues
4. CAJ to investigate issues of "maladministration" and "mis-governance”.
|
|
t2011
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by t2011 on Aug 29, 2013 17:35:47 GMT 3
Mutunga and JSC gang have failed the due diligence test and this habit of hiding behind technicality is a text book theory that cannot work in a proper judicial system whose core pillar is justice to all.
Where is the law of natural justice in this sholei saga , where is the financial and administrative oversight practiced if you insulate JSC from proper probe , is abdinassir not probable, is Prof mango not , is emilly ominde not even the said judges should be probed , law is a moral contract written in a constitution so the people given authority to hire , fire and streamline the judicial ssytem end up playing monkey panky business and exposing their immorality in the face of the law, then you are stalking a fire worse than a peoples revolution .
Mutunga if the kitchen is too hot, then get out and let a person with balls lead jsc , this attitude of voting on every every issue which requires administrative and structured handling you let some busy bodies like abdinasir and co decide by vote , know that the judiciary is still rotten as you found it and you have done nothing to it and if i may ask is it really moral to earn 80000kshs as sitting allowance per day and your watchman earns 5000 for 30 days work honestly if this is not corruption of the highest order.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Aug 29, 2013 20:00:56 GMT 3
The ceasefire arranged under the auspices of Judge Majanja, is holding. she resumes duty, and withdraws the suits which would have exposed some members of the JSC for what they really are: .............. This conflict is frozen on the surface, internally, the plot thickens. Well, it did not hold for long. Ahmednasir Abdulahi blew it apart even before the ink was dry. ---Sorry Otishotishs, your good guy CJ Mutunga? looks increasingly irrelevant. www.the-star.co.ke/news/article-134204/ahmednasir-trashes-jsc-deal-sholleiSaturday, August 31, 2013 - 00:00 -- BY SAM KIPLAGAT CHIEF Registrar of Judiciary Gladys Boss Shollei yesterday wrote to Chief Justice Willy Mutunga requesting that he remove Ahmednasir Abdullahi from the Judicial Service Commission. Shollei is currently in France and communicated through her lawyer Donald Kipkorir. Yesterday Ahmednasir reportedly trashed the consent agreement made on Thursday before Justice David Majanja between the JSC and Shollei allowing her to continue work pending an investigation. Shollei had then withdrawn her petition against her suspension by the JSC. Yesterday Ahmednasir was invited to greet lawyers at a workshop organized by the Law Society of Kenya at Panari Hotel by the LSK chairman Eric Mutua. He then reportedly informed the lawyers that the withdrawal of her suspension was only procedural and Shollei will be prosecuted for financial improprieties. Through her lawyer Donald Kipkorir, Shollei advised the CJ that she intended to sue the commissioner for libel. In her letter, Shollei said that Ahmednasir “ought to know he doesn't have monopoly of power, knowledge and hubris”. - See more at: www.the-star.co.ke/news/article-134204/ahmednasir-trashes-jsc-deal-shollei#sthash.DT21ficL.dpufThe son of Jomo surely has to issue one of those directive cards  hoards in his back pocket! |
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Sept 1, 2013 15:06:48 GMT 3
I have not seen the whole press coverage.
If it true, the JSC and the Registrar have kissed and made up, then I think we are entitled to a full and open explanation on what happened.
It is ludicrous if these matter is hush-hushed in the shadows and let to die a natural death.
The truth must be exposed.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Sept 29, 2013 0:13:14 GMT 3
--One would think this is ELEMENTARY stuff! O Kenya! This is where you lawyers baffle me, MOONKI!  . Ahmednasir the accuser who also barred the AG from voting by skype or video conference --- setting a very bad precedent should Uhuru need must rule by skype later in time--- is to head the probe? Is the verdict not already written?! And then the accused has also back-accused him of having seeking to influence, provide the building, which is innuendo for a rip-deal! In good rational thinking, which is standard practice and established protocol, the investigation is then outsourced to an objective, external body or auditor! Not insiders emotionally involved, and therefore certainly prejudiced. Where I work, the tax department does not accept our own auditors statement: it has to be an EXTERNAL auditor's seal. Does not make it fool- cheatproof yes, but gives it an veneer of objectivity; and the punishment is so draconian external auditors usually do not bother to fiddle books. But my point is: all these learned friends of yours, why do they not do what I think I saw in Nancy Baraza's case: An impartial Tanzanian eminent Grand Mullah  was imported! ---and established the facts in double-time! {the kenya police were taking ages peering at CCTV dead corners!} I hate to rub it in Otishotish, but CJ Mutunga never seems to have a capacity to think clearly. It makes him, dare I say, a funny man. Even with a caveat of kenyan papers as lying machines, this is a hit: Supremacy wars lead to truths coming out! whether wars between security forces at a terrorist theater of operations, whether eminent legal scholars running a sitting allowance scam at an esteemed organisation called the JSC! --- Exposing theemselves as simple con men and womenwww.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000094444&story_title=judicial-service-commission-members-mint-millions-every-month-from-sittings&pageNo=1 wanna call a spade a spade? Mutunga is running a sitting allowance scam! The funny man is also a con man! conning Wanjiku! There is a way of calculating the value of work done, which will mathematically underwrite my statement, that this is a fraud ongoing! |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Sept 29, 2013 0:18:29 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Sept 29, 2013 0:25:45 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by nowayhaha on Oct 24, 2013 20:50:42 GMT 3
Personally I think she was doing well dwelling on the legality issue until she decided to venture into the murky grounds of baseless accusations against some of the JSC members (which is a one sentence she made in matter of less than one minute but has overshadowed the whole appearance ). I watched both Shollei appearance on the parliamentary committee and Ahmed Nassirs interview in K24 . What came out clearly is that there have been some power struggle between the JSC and the Chief Registrar which albeit in any organization is normal and for these reasons right people with the tight skills and capacity are employed to mitigate or most importantly overcome the challenges lest we let machines operate. Shollei who I have been holding a high opinion that she is above board has really disappointed me .She played to the gallery of the 4th estate by mentioning names and accusations which most likely will make her never return as the chief registrar and If she returns she wont last long due to human factor reasons like need of maintaining a cohesive team /team work which will deliver and achieve the desired results. What is evident is that Shollei’s undoing was that rather than being transparent and communicating the decision (which is the bone of contention) of acquiring a building in Mombasa to the JSC financial committee she decided to usurp or ignore that team reasons better known to her but what clearly came out is due to gender inferiority complex and the JSC then decided to show their powers by forcing her to go for a compulsory leave which is not only illegal but unconstitutional. (this was wrong as 2 wrongs don’t make a right ) .Yes a precedent had been made by Raila on maize saga by “sending” Carol Omondi and Mohamed Isakhia on leave pending investigation but this was a smokescreen to cool down political temperatures and for Raila to damage control on his image of “safi kama pamba “ This issue is coming out as Miguna drama part 2 .Where right people with wrong skills are given demanding jobs and they squander the opportunity to a position where they derail and eventually Kill the mission and vision of the goal. Sholleis goal was to see the transformation of the judiciary to where the Kenyans envisioned the organization to be .Of course one needs the goodwill of the stakeholders and most importantly the wananchis but the approach she took leaves a lot to be desired . One can never live in a vacuum and any transformational ideas to be successful need to be bought also by the people working with you / under you not unless you have been brought to overhaul the whole organization which was not the instance in Sholleis case nor can it be practical in Judicial system in Kenya which has been running time in memorial even since before independence and further more if that was the case Kenyans would have stated the same during the referendum of the new constitution . Remember when our own Jukwaa member Kamale warned us that it appears that activists are good at theory and perform dismally when given an opportunity to enact/implement their ideas and when Miguna was suspended by the former PM our own Jukwaa member Adongo23456 predicted that Miguna most likely wont get his job back due to the manner he had reacted to the suspension. Its public knowledge that Shollei is who she is because of his husband (from the day they met and made the arrangements for them to study together in South African )the CEO of standard media group and it’s a shame this saga might also drag in his husband who is a respected and an outstanding individual. The CORD/ODM March 04 losers are also happy that Ahmed Nassir name has also been mentioned in this saga . Where as Shollei elaborated the work issues she has with Warsame and Omide she never came out clear on any issue she has with Ahmed Nassir pointing it has been in the public gallery for a minute .CORD/ODM harbor bad feelings which in normal and human on Ahmed Nasir due to his involvement in the MAR 04 presidential election petition and perceived closeness(far from truth ) with UhuRuto administration as his former Law firm partner /associate Abdikadir is the presidential advisor on constitution matters . What I will say abou the whole saga -->Shollei has dissapinted majority of Kenyans who believed she would be one of the intergral personality to transform the judiciary. The email exchages s3.marsgroupkenya.org/media/documents/2013/10/63381dafcd4ebe354e0fea9a0a92e12e.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Mar 12, 2014 22:00:19 GMT 3
|
|
, they asked Judge Majanja if they could be allowed to resolve the issue out of court, and out of the the public limelight with its intense scrutiny!
and above parliament.
hoards in his back pocket!
. Ahmednasir the accuser who also barred the AG from voting by skype or video conference ---setting a very bad precedent should Uhuru need must rule by skype later in time--- is to head the probe? Is the verdict not already written?! And then the accused has also back-accused him of having seeking to influence, provide the building, which is innuendo for a rip-deal!
was imported! ---and established the facts in double-time! {the kenya police were taking ages peering at CCTV dead corners!}