What is there to extrapolate? Would the public vote for people they do not trust? And if they voted for them, would the court rule that the public do not trust them and that voting and trusting are not the same?

This question was whether Chapter 6 was considered in the appointment. It was not on Matemu as such. The answer is the executive and parliament bypassed chapter 6 !!! The judges claim chapter 6 is not an ornamental law! Am waiting for some one to challenge the new act on vetting for it to be repealed by the court.

What people fail to appreciate is that Chapter 6 is not a formula. You don't say for example that 1+1=2 and say you have applied the integrity test. Parliament ignored some glaring unethical practises in Matemu's case. The court: Ngugi, Ngugi and Odunga J felt that the nature of this unethical practises warranted a decision ousting him from being confimed in the position. A different bench may have held differently. The application of Chapter 6 is thus, and can only be, subjective as it is a viewpoint or expression of feelings guided by the wording of Chapter 6 which may defer from tribunal to tribunal.

.,we all know they arent worth at all,i,d rather throw away my vote,issue at hand iz are they eligible to run?the answer is it will depend on the panel of judges and how they will interpret chapter 6.

That is a serious precedent there. If it were to be followed, UK and WR would be barred from running. But so would RAO and his involvement with 82 coup for which he was detained but never charged. Crime doesnt die and is not affected by Limitation of Action like civil suits. But judges in their subtlelty are known to avoid relying on precedence