The bar has been set too high. It will never again be a question of numbers. Even an unsigned form or a wrongly photocopied form will nullify an election. That’s the danger of being too liberal. Any cunning Presidential aspirant can now hold the country hostage and demand an infinite repeat of an election. Just compromise a secretary here, a returning officer there or a poll clerk. Henceforth, numbers won’t matter. It’s now the process that will be used to send this nation on a tail spin. Friends, brace for Nusu, quarter and Eigth mkate government s in not so far a future. This country will be perpetually in a campaign mode as every Dick and Harry secures a rerun from MCA to President. All you need do is cast aspersions, and Voilà, the precedent set by the highest court of the land will carry the day. It’s a dark future that beckons. The ditches are dug, and the spikes pegged. Time to dig in for every tribal King.
Fortunately the supreme court has a discretion of not binding to precedence(s).
Pandora’s box phenomenon
Haidhuru, we still have our voting cards and willpower to put all these behind us.
It’s too low my friend… anyway let’s see for how long this circus can be sustained.
I wish the judges said that any RO who did a showdy job to spend time in jail. Watu wangenyoroka.
Bro, if you are in business, you know how bad we have been hit this year. Perpetual campaign mode will kill this nation. Times I wonder why we can’t hire a president from Solomon Islands or Kezykistan. Send a Hr team to Cambodia and bring us a professional president. Leave us to hassle bila skunks shouting on the streets costing us money like we will directly benefit from s president. The SC has shafted us proper. Just wait and see the number of petitions coming soon
They should all rot in Kamiti. How do you not sign a document knowing how emotive Kenyan presidential outcome is. They should not be spared I say
I get you loud and clear @mabenda4. SC cannot hold the country hostage in perpetuity in pursuit of a perfect/preferred outcome, because it is virtually impossible to eliminate all errors or flaws in the process
That’s a good starting point . The moment they realize there is consequences for their action or inaction is the moment they will be responsible. Few should be taken to kamiti to set an example to others
I felt Kamwanas pain Jana. Losing an election, not because he didn’t have the numbers, but simply becoz someone neglected to sign a form, whether promoted si to do or by own volition. The DPP should speedily send this goons to kamiti without fines
@Kasighau , Jubilee has the numbers in parliament. after the elections, we embark on a clean up exercise like has never been seen before. the evil society activists, activist judges and the whole judiciary must be sanitized. watajua hawajui!
I await the full ruling and the reason therein of nullifying an election not because there was rigging or the petitioner challenged the numbers, but because someone dint sign a form or another form was a photocopy. it will be very embarrassing and will forever be used as a bad example in law.
This one verdict may go down the annals of history as one of the worst ill conceived verdict to ever come down from a bench. Conducting a national election is not like burning Hydrogen to get water. It’s not a science. It’s an art. There is no one Chairman of IEBC who can ever deliver such an election as percieved and envisaged in the verdict. The chair of IEBC will be moto wa kuotea mbali. Imagine, no rigging, a clear margin between the contenders, all other indicators in Parliament , Senate, county and governors are in tandem. Then an unsigned form denies you a win.
- A judge of a superior court may be removed from office only on the grounds of–
(a) inability to perform the functions of office arising from mental or physical incapacity;
(b) a breach of a code of conduct prescribed for judges of the superior courts by an Act of Parliament;
(d) incompetence; or
(e) gross misconduct or misbehaviour.
(2) The removal of a judge may be initiated only by the Judicial Service Commission acting on its own motion, or on the petition of any person to the Judicial Service Commission.
(3) A petition by a person to the Judicial Service Commission under clause (2) shall be in writing, setting out the alleged facts constituting the grounds for the judges removal.
(4) The Judicial Service Commission shall consider the petition and, if it is satisfied that the petition discloses a ground for removal under clause (1), send the petition to the President.
(5) The President shall, within fourteen days after receiving the petition, suspend the judge from office and, acting in accordance with the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission–
(a) in the case of the Chief Justice, appoint a tribunal consisting of–
(i) the Speaker of the National Assembly, as chairperson;
(ii) three superior court judges from common-law jurisdictions;
(iii) one advocate of fifteen years standing; and
(iv) two other persons with experience in public affairs; or
(b) in the case of a judge other than the Chief Justice, appoint a tribunal consisting of–
(i) a chairperson and three other members from among persons who hold or have held office as a judge of a superior court, or who are qualified to be appointed as such but who, in either case, have not been members of the Judicial Service Commission at any time within the immediately preceding three years;
(ii) one advocate of fifteen years standing; and
(iii) two other persons with experience in public affairs.
(6) Despite Article 160 (4), the remuneration and benefits payable to a judge who is suspended from office under clause (5) shall be adjusted to one half until such time as the judge is removed from, or reinstated in, office.
(7) A tribunal appointed under clause (5) shall–
(a) be responsible for the regulation of its proceedings, subject to any legislation contemplated in clause (10);
(b) inquire into the matter expeditiously and report on the facts and make binding recommendations to the President.
(8) A judge who is aggrieved by a decision of the tribunal under this Article may appeal against the decision to the Supreme Court, within ten days after the tribunal makes its recommendations.
(9) The President shall act in accordance with the recommendations made by the tribunal on the later of –
(a) the expiry of the time allowed for an appeal under clause (8), if no such appeal is taken; or
(b) the completion of all rights of appeal in any proceedings allowed for under clause (8), if such an appeal is taken and the final order in the matter affirms the tribunal’s recommendations.
(10) Parliament shall enact legislation providing for the procedure of a tribunal appointed under this Article.
[li]< 167. Tenure of office of the Chief Justice and other judges[/li][/ul]
Agreed, Sherlock Holmes. But security of tenure should not be used to disfranchise a country. It should be used to propagate and uphold a nation. Verdicts must never be handed down in a vacuum. There are very many moving objects to be considered besides
it’s very clear that it’s possible to clean the mess that the judiciary is, trust me that will be done at the earliest.
DEDUCTION FROM THE FOREGOING:
[li]Institutions are failing Kenyans. Where institutions fail to carry out their core mandate and choose to pander to vested interests, Wanjiku suffers. If IEBC had conducted the elections in a diligent manner, we would not be here. The same applies to ALL institutions. Look at the shenanigans at the National Police Service, NTSA, KRA, EACC etc.[/li][li]The solutions lies in strengthening institutions not weakening them by filling them with regime friendly individuals. Those advocating for the “sanitisation” are actually scoring own goals. The question should be, are the people in our institutions capable of delivering on the set objectives of those institutions? Do they even understand their mandate?[/li][/ol]
I hear strokes can be induced?