people love talking...talking...talking... sabotage if there is no DOMO. the JSC is out of this story. its because people were not talked to to their hearts content. people need to learn to respect institutions and their decisions. not everything will come your way!

AMEN

Bro, read the sixth schedule on transitional provisions.

I guess we are now progressing well after the speaker's ruling.

I have analysed all the happenings and I have an opinion this will be the verdict whether in court or in parliament.

1. Both Raila and Kibaki were wrong on the appointment of the Chief Justice.

Some lawyer must have informed them that JSC's input was not necessary. This is what convinced them " A new Chief Justice shall be appointed by the President, subject to the National Accord and Reconciliation Act, and after consultation with the Prime Minister and with the approval of the National Assembly"

Unless the same constitution specifically states that this is a special appointment, we all know that there are rules that ought to be followed when appointing the Chief Justice. And this is where the JSC comes in.

2. Kibaki and Raila may be found to have been wrong on the issue of gender balance. This is what the court has just ruled. The matter may not be conclusive for now. But chances are, this will be the final verdict.

3. Though both Kibaki and Raila must consult, the way that was worded was intended to give one of them an upper hand in case of a disagreement. am of the feeling that if there is sufficient evidence that there in deed was conclusive consultations, the President will carry the day.
If the consultations are deemed to be incomplete, then the Prime Minister will carry the day.

Finally

Regardless of the verdict in no. 3 above, the whole process or part of the process will have to be repeated.

- The CJ position will have to go through JSC
-Depending on the final court ruling one of the other 3 may have to leave the post to a woman.

@petro, I like your views. No emotions, no rushing to judge anyone and hurl insults at them.The court actually could make a ruling in similar fashion to your line of thought. It could tie Article 166 with the Transitional provisions and rule that the transitional provisions complement the Chapter on Judiciary.

@Jerry, please refer to all @Kadonye's posts on this thread as I choose not to respond to your 'Pharisee' claim.

Yes, all the above mentioned may have been wrong. Kindly check my response on post#36 on http://www.wazua.co.ke/f...10870&p=2#post146096

I said it before, the naming put things in a very tricky position. What can anyone do now? Are those guys not qualified? Does anyone of them who is in a position that counts have any partisan interest. If the answers are yes and no respectively, then the list will stand. The CJ was the tricky bit.

Meanwhile, the legal fraternity thinks it is their sole duty to say who should be appointed. Some lawyers have cases which have stalled in courts for ever. Lawyers are one of a kind. All lawyers I speak to make it sound that they have been denied the right to choose. Their choise is to retain status quo.

As for the ruling 'prohibiting all arm of government from making the nominations' I cannot make what the guy meant.