Mc reggae,I also thought that the ruling was done with the help of parliamentary counsel so there was thorough reference to the existing statutes.


I mean fundamental analysis,you get me?

Fundamental analysis of a business involves analyzing its financial statements and health,its management and competitive advantages,and its competitors

Mcreggae- that government means the executive and that under the constitution the President is the head of state and government- the accord did not change that- an therefore a communication by government to parliament ultimately lies in the president nasio mtu mwingine kama muthaura.

Ngalaka valid point. though outrage is the best education the citizenry can give their leadership lakini msing'oe reli. keep it decent and legal.

@254,ecstacy,$moothie,Mr. Tea,B.Timer

You insist that Marende should have followed the law,but what you are in reality saying is that he should have done as the president wanted and confirmed 8% as the HBC chairman.

If you all are such strong believers of the rule of the law,then why don't you clap and cheer for him coz as it is,he has broken no law,nor gone against the constitution. Disobeying the president does not amount to breaking a law.

Furthermore,since you are all such proponents of the rule of law,why don't you now take the issue to the courts and let the courts decide as you are so fond of harping on here.

And finally,just call a spade a spade,if you think he should have ruled in favour of 8% then come up and say so,speak your minds,we are all big boys/girls.


I guess if you can't win with facts,you can always pen bile-laced,xenophobic rants to distract everyone.

We know Kalonzo is a serious contender for presidency come next elections but must one fit him in this debate by whatever means? Some people can say anything.

Been lurking around. And got to agree with Obi - the guys who keep on whining about Marende not following the law should really come out and say what they truly mean by that instead of hiding behind such predictable sound bites.

If any body paid attention to the proceedings in Parliament then it was clear that both sides came out and used the law to support their positions. I make reference to that to point to one thing - that the law can be construed in different ways. The law is an Ass.

Marende in his Ruling went into details on the various Statutes,the Standing Order and the Consitution. He then went on and made his decision. One thing that most seem not to mention is that Section 3 (I think) is the part of the Constitution that expressly state the Supremacy of the Constitution and that the said section expressly provided that any Act of Parliament that is made pursuant to Section 15 (I think) shall not be subject to that section. That Act is the NARA and the Constitution itself says that it can be inconsistent with it and still be law. In effect the Act is at par with the constitution.

Now at the end of it all he did made a Ruling based on his construing of the law. Several lawyers agree with him. Several lawyers do not. It happens in Courts all over the world that the decision by a judge or magistrate has to go one way out of several possible.

So,like the decision or not,one thing is clear - MARENDE DID NOTHING ILLEGAL and contrary to some popular believe here HE APPLIED THE LAW. According to Tea and company he may not have given a decision on what they felt the law - according to them- but that does not mean that we can objectively state that he failed to apply the law.

Those not satiffied can indeed go to court but it should be kept in mind that the court really has no power to order the Parliament on its procedure. Nyamu J (as he then was) tried it and embarassed the judiciary when his injunctive orders were rightfully ignored by the Parliament.

namcast.com - free .ke emails