Reading through her judgments when she was in the criminal division of the high court often makes me sad.
You see many cases where she should have quashed a conviction, but upheld it.
It is like she was operating under the premise that ‘ukiona mtu ameshikwa, lazima kuna kitu amefanya’.
Now this thinking is excusable for a layman, or even a magistrate, but not a judge.
Especially for sex offenses, there are many convictions she upheld yet she should have acquitted, going even by her very own summaries of evidence. She didn’t seem to realize that people are sometimes framed (and a judge is meant to correct that). I have often wondered how a person with such poor reasoning ended up on the Supreme court, which is supposed to be made of the best of the best.
Amos Wako Wake may have an authoritative answer…
Uzi umefungwa.
:D:D:D:D:D:D
Leta pdf tujisomee
A judge works under certain strict rules and is very much limited in what he/she can do.
Interpretation is everything. Two judges can arrive at dissimilar conclusions, even when presented with the same evidence, same defense and same witnesses.
Not being prejudiced, I think she’s the least intelligent person on that Supreme court bench. She didn’t hit me as someone you can have an intelligent conversation with during nullification hearings.
And then yesterday I saw her CV. She has held some big positions like snr legal manager at Jubilee insurance, board secretary Electricity Regulatory Board, a director at Nairobi Water etc.
There’s little chance a woman of so little charisma and intelligence can have such positions, unless she had the hand of Amos Wake.
look, my friend, most judges huwa na biases-- especially kwa criminal cases/criminal appeals where the accussed/appellant is unrepresented. kuna wale huwa wako na bias ya ku-convict/uphold sentence. na kuna wale huwa na bias ya ku-acquit/quash the sentence. you will be surprised at how much leeway a judge actually has, especially in criminal cases where the truth is often hard to tell. so some, instead of trying to look for the truth, they allow their biases to take over. 90%ya judgements za mwilu akiwa high court, criminal division zenye nimeona, alikuwa ana-convict ama ku-uphold the conviction. on the other hand, 90% ya judgements za, say, maureen odero niku-acquit/quash the sentence. which makes sense, because most of the people who are taken to court are simply folks who were framed. it is very hard to catch a real criminal. a real criminal huwa anajua anatafutwa. so he hides. cops huwa at a disadvantage.
kuna kesi moja lydia achode ali-uphold conviction ya alleged defiler, even when the medical examination ilionesha the kid was fully intact! it depends really on what the judge sees his/her role as. kuna wale u-assume their role niku-protect society against criminals. na kuna wale uchukulia their role ni kusaidia watu wame-framiwa. but a judge anafaa kuwa objective, knowing that sometimes, people are framed.
kwa hizi sexual offenses, kuna judges wamama who still maintain neutrality. like martha koome, while she was at the high court, i liked her neutrality – notwithstanding that ali-make her name kwa Fida. but because of what i perceive as her intelligence, she was always neutral. aki-convict, unaona sound reasoning. aki-acquit, unaona sound reasoning. kuna website (kenyalaw.org I think) where you can find various judgements ujisomee and see for yourself.
I SMH when I ponder that Mbete Mwilu rose to the position of DCJ