@kadonye...osa vinya!

And I guess the new constitution gives him the powers to rough up Kenyans who might be drunk. This Sonko fellow is one stupid S.O.B. If they were drunk, it means they were less of a threat to his security than if they were sober. It therefore follows that lesser force - if any - should have be used. Brari uji baridi. This is our country and any fool who thinks he can walk all over fellow Kenyans should be banished!!! Let him buy an island and make his own rules there - that is what people with real money do!!!

@"Elder" - That is not the point here. Is being in a car with a kid at 9:30pm a crime/misdemeanour? What time is the curfew? If it is not a crime what the hell is being investigated. You seem to be okay with the art and science of formatting text but let me school you on matters legal. Investigations are done if and only if there is suspicion that crime was done or was in process of being done.

How a bunch of goons draw guns on innocent Kenyans and terrorize them and then we decide to "investigate" why the victims had their niece in the car at 9:30pm even before dealing with the goons is what I refer to as retrogressive thinking.

I have some shares at the NSE. Maybe you should have me investigated. Where did I get the money from? What will I use the money for when I sell the shares? etc. etc.

Ok Mr Wakili. In your taking me to legal school you only pick on one fact which is the fact of their being out with a child of 8 years at 9:30pm. What are the other facts?

That the DJ did not tell us that he was first dropping his niece home before heading to his gig. All he said is that he was heading to his gig.

That he seemingly 'obstructed' other road users by stopping to pick up passengers and thus putting not only the life of other road users in danger but also his niece. Now you can claim that he stopped at the stage as the DJ is obviously now stating but you have to remember that there are always two sides to the story. And the testimony of whoever is telling his side of the story is inherently unreliable.

That according to Sonko they were drunk. In as much as you may not want to believe Sonko he was there we were not and his statement should not just be discarded off-hand.

Now there is something called the Children Act or something like that and I believe one with some great understanding of the law and is seemingly qualified to school guys like me should know about. Please re-read it.



Did anybody say that we first investigate the DJ before dealing with Sonko? And what do you mean by dealing with him? Don't you think he should be given the benefit of the doubt like all Kenyans and be INVESTIGATED FIRST? And who said if there is a likelihood of two parties committing a crime that you can't investigate both at the same time?

This formatting thing must be giving me some legal perspective I did not know I had.



There are several bodies that may want to investigate where you get money to purchase your shares but not me. KRA and that Money Laundering Act that you great legal mind should know about swiftly come to mind. May I add that there will need to be certain circumstances to warrant that?

NOTE: My personal opinion of Sonko is that he is a clown. And a dangerous one at that.

What struck me in this whole case was the braveness of Sonko's security detail. They suspected a carjacking and their reaction was to get out of the car and deal with the suspects! Now THAT's real security!