@ Litoro

they have been created by an Act of Parliament which is superseded by constitution

Why cant they remain where they are?why do the muslims insist they should be in the constitution?Are they effective in their current setting?

Peace to all men of Goodwill

Okay if they are in an act of paliament and nobody has complained 4 all these years,then wacha zikae hiko huko unless muslims can prove that under the current arrangement,their rights have been grossly violated and can only be safeguaded if entrenced in the new katiba. otherwise wawache DOMO!

Kadhis courts are indeed in the current constitution. So by voting NO to the new constitution will not change anything.
they have been there since independence. The history is long and may be historians like @TRScan help.....before the mzungu came,coast was part of the zanzibzri sultanate. The christian missionaries 'convinced'(for lack of a better word) the inland natives to leave their traditions and worship their God. Unfortunately the coastal muslims were not easily 'convinced' and remained muslim to date. To protect their rights since they were the minority,it was entrenched in the constitution which requires 2/3 majority to change unlike an act of parliament which even MK regularly ignores



In any society the treatment given to the minority is a barometer of its justness.

Me first,U next

These should be removed in toto from the constitution.there is an ulterior course being fronted by the muslim - to islamise not only kenya and africa but the world.if what al shabab stand for is a glimpse of what sharia is all about,even the slightest reference or sembrance of sharia should not be tolerated.all it will take is have many people being won over to islam and have them clamouring for enhancement of their rights as would have been entrenched in the constitution.letz reject this agenda! we can deal with a religiously neutral constitution but not one that pedestals one religion over others.

Everyone should be heard and respected!

I agree with @kingfisher,Kenya's draft constitution does not lean toward any religion. It remains clearly a secular state. Now,80% christians and still a secular state....now a minority is what muslims us to believe they are and therefore we ought to protect their 'rights'

Secular is and must remain secular throughout!!

Kadhi courts can be in an act of Parliament and believe me,no one is interested in denying anyone their rights,but religion and state MUST remain seperate. In islam countries they entrench it because islam is indeed the way of governing. In our secular state,there is no room for constitutional 'segregation'

Just what I think.


Baraka za Mungu ni za Ajabu

@Bashka & Waria... We get you. But my question remains: would Muslim be worse off in terms of rights and privileges if the Kadhi courts are left out of the national document? Will justice not be dispensed?

Pls list for us (1,2,3 ...) the consequences of failure to entrench the Kadhi Courts into the constitution ..... and you might get full support from many of us,if its really convincing. We don’t want our brother Muslims to suffer in any way.....And then,they should not just insist on Kadhi courts just for the sake of it...






Life is worth living cos God planned it to be so.

@All,

Thank you for bringing this debate back. I wish to refer you to my earlier post on the same Constitution Review; Secular vs religious state


each day is a gift from God; I dont know if I will be here tomorrow; should I be,I'll make the most of it for God's glory; should I be not,pick up and keep the legacy

@mkenya

the fact remains,Kenya is neither a Christian State nor a Muslim state. it is a secular state,therefore Muslims should respect that and keep their Khadhi Courts and religious issues out of the state constitution.

let's keep it that simple and focused.



each day is a gift from God; I dont know if I will be here tomorrow; should I be,I'll make the most of it for God's glory; should I be not,pick up and keep the legacy

I support @flipthecoin. The muslims are doing everything they can to get a good grip on Kenya. I understand they are marrying Christian girls in large numbers,showering them with all the riches.... the only catch being to bear them muslim children. In a few years the Muslims will not be a minority so why entrench the Kadhi's Court into the constitution.

I will praise thee,O Lord my God,with all my heart: And I will glorify thy name forever more. Psalms 86:12

Haven't gone through all the posts in this thread so,may be some one has aired sentiments similar to mine.

There is a mistaken belief amongst non-Muslim Kenyans that the Muslims want special treatment. After all 'Why do they want their court in 'our' constitution?'

We forget how this thing came about....

Yash Pal Ghai and his CKRC team went around the country collecting views from all Kenyans on what they want included in the constitution. During those hearings,the Muslims proposed the inclusion of the Kadhi Court in the constitution as a 'High Court'.

Their aim was to give it more teeth to enforce its rulings and make them binding. Currently,this Court is a toothless bull dog which is ignored by anyone who wants to do so.

Anyway,at that time,anybody who cared to go to CKRC do so and said whatever he/she wanted and it was recorded....the submissions in raw form used to be available on the ckrc website...don't know if the site is still there...

If the Christians and Hindus wanted to have their Courts,the could have submitted the proposal to CKRC.

So really,it is not a question of seeking special status. Rather,people were invited to make submissions and the Muslims made theirs.

BTW: I made a submission for the creation of a tribal house of parliament as an upper house; but that's a story for a different thread. Point is,we were free to propose anything we wished and if there were enough people suggesting a particular thing,it would find it's way into the draft constitution.

I guess my tribal House was a lone idea.....

Still though,we need to be a little more accommodating and figure out how to give this important court teeth to enforce its rulings. An Act of Parliament does not work.

At Bomas,the Kadhi Court was relegated to a subordinate court [magistrates court] from the level of High Court.

Perhaps this gives us a procedure for creating new courts in the future. If an interest groups wants a Court,they first have under an Act of Parliament for,say,10 - 20 years; see how it works; then upgrade it into the constitution.....

To answer the question of the thread; I don't have a problem with the Kadhi Court in the manner proposed at Bomas.

Behind the gardens...Behind the wall...Under the tree (Including: Red...Dark Blue...Yellow)