Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Politics
»
Mumo Matemu nominated as anti graft boss
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/17/2008 Posts: 23,365 Location: Nairobi
|
Matemu's appointment nullified by the high court, his conduct raises serious integrity issues thus can't assumme office!!!! ..."Wewe ni mtu mdogo sana....na mwenye amekuandika pia ni mtu mdogo sana!".
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 11/26/2008 Posts: 2,097
|
http://www.nation.co.ke/.../-/13nbh9xz/-/index.html"Never regret, if its good, its wonderful. If its bad, its experience."
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/23/2008 Posts: 3,017
|
Fantastic. I am loving it. This ruling should make our politicians very worried. most will not make it to the ballot come next March. Uhuru and Ruto's geese are as good as cooked. RAO, Mudavadi, Steve are on the cliff edge. "The purpose of bureaucracy is to compensate for incompetence and lack of discipline." James Collins
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/24/2011 Posts: 833
|
which conduct led to his dismissal? this mutunga guy is changing kenya big time, both in real terms and by association!!!!!!! cant believe this stuff is happening in my lifetime
well done judiciary, next go for the vultures we call politicians and where possible recover all ill gotten wealth from the culprits and beneficiaries, this is what dreams are made of
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 3/26/2012 Posts: 1,182
|
pariah wrote:which conduct led to his dismissal? this mutunga guy is changing kenya big time, both in real terms and by association!!!!!!! cant believe this stuff is happening in my lifetime
well done judiciary, next go for the vultures we call politicians and where possible recover all ill gotten wealth from the culprits and beneficiaries, this is what dreams are made of I guess those who have ill-gotten wealth/positions have reasons to worry.Sad think they are all over calling CJ an activist,to discredit him and the judiciary. Sadder thing, even some wazuans see mutunga as an activist for his stand on some presidential candidates.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 4/30/2008 Posts: 6,029
|
Obi 1 Kanobi wrote:Fantastic. I am loving it.
This ruling should make our politicians very worried. most will not make it to the ballot come next March. Uhuru and Ruto's geese are as good as cooked.
RAO, Mudavadi, Steve are on the cliff edge. the constitution is clear that public officers are, appointed after vetting by suitable OR election in free and fair elections.The constitution further spells out clearly the qualifications for presidential candidates.It even goes further to state one is innocent till proved guilty by a court of law and has not exhausted all avenues of appeal meaning even Nabutola can contest the Bumula parliamentary seat if released on bail pending conclusion of appeal.Thus UK,WR and other candidates are eligible to contest for the presidency.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 4/22/2010 Posts: 11,522 Location: Nairobi
|
@obi kanobi thats not true ua stretching the constitution big time,chapter 6 iz not explicit in its wording,but the presuposition created under chapter 6 iz that once you are convicted in a competent court of law you CANNOT run for public office,NABUTOLA cannot run that would be a mockery of the intent and spirit of the constitution,on the other hand WSR and UK might run because they have only been put on their defence and not convicted... possunt quia posse videntur
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 4/30/2008 Posts: 6,029
|
Maka,If Nabutola appeals and is released on bond pending the conclusion of her appeal she becomes innocent till proved guilty and can vie for a parliamentary seat.The constitution is clear on this.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 4/22/2010 Posts: 11,522 Location: Nairobi
|
In passing the new Constitution and in including in it the provisions of Articles 27, 38 and 43 among others, the presupposition that was created was that all would have an equal opportunity and an equal voice, regardless of status. However this provison cannot be read in isolation. Save for the right to life, all rights have limitations. The Elections Act, Act No 24 of 2011, enacted pursuant to the requirements of Article 99 of the Constitution of Kenya provides: (1) Unless disqualified under clause (2), a person is eligible for election as a member of Parliament if the person: (a) is registered as a voter; (b) satisfies any educational, moral and ethical requirements prescribed by this Constitution or by an Act of Parliament. Nabutola by virtue of her conviction falls short of the integrity benchmark set in Chapter 6 and she thus fails to meet the requisite threshold necessary to enable her run. possunt quia posse videntur
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/23/2008 Posts: 3,017
|
@Mawinder If I were you I would read the judgement that was used to bar Mumo (even the newspaper version). Mumo has never been charged in court with any wrong doing, he was simply barred from the seat as KACC Director General because of the allegations against him. The court held that Parliament did not sufficiently clear his name and that were he to be the DG of KACC, the public would have no trust in him. Now extrapolate the same judgement to WR or UK and conclude. "The purpose of bureaucracy is to compensate for incompetence and lack of discipline." James Collins
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/20/2007 Posts: 4,432
|
Obi 1 Kanobi wrote:@Mawinder
If I were you I would read the judgement that was used to bar Mumo (even the newspaper version). Mumo has never been charged in court with any wrong doing, he was simply barred from the seat as KACC Director General because of the allegations against him. The court held that Parliament did not sufficiently clear his name and that were he to be the DG of KACC, the public would have no trust in him.
Now extrapolate the same judgement to WR or UK and conclude.  Now that is what we call precedent. It is now law. I fear for the Mp's too.  Jose: If I make it through this thug life, I'll see you one day. The Lord is the only way to stop the hurt.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 12/1/2008 Posts: 1,098
|
Obi 1 Kanobi wrote:@Mawinder
If I were you I would read the judgement that was used to bar Mumo (even the newspaper version). Mumo has never been charged in court with any wrong doing, he was simply barred from the seat as KACC Director General because of the allegations against him. The court held that Parliament did not sufficiently clear his name and that were he to be the DG of KACC, the public would have no trust in him.
Now extrapolate the same judgement to WR or UK and conclude. 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? 
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/23/2008 Posts: 3,017
|
Jump-steady wrote:Obi 1 Kanobi wrote:@Mawinder
If I were you I would read the judgement that was used to bar Mumo (even the newspaper version). Mumo has never been charged in court with any wrong doing, he was simply barred from the seat as KACC Director General because of the allegations against him. The court held that Parliament did not sufficiently clear his name and that were he to be the DG of KACC, the public would have no trust in him.
Now extrapolate the same judgement to WR or UK and conclude. 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? The correct ruling should be that they are not fit to hold office. "The purpose of bureaucracy is to compensate for incompetence and lack of discipline." James Collins
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 11/4/2008 Posts: 1,289 Location: Nairobi
|
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.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/23/2008 Posts: 3,017
|
FundamentAli wrote: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. Enuf said "The purpose of bureaucracy is to compensate for incompetence and lack of discipline." James Collins
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 4/22/2010 Posts: 11,522 Location: Nairobi
|
FundamentAli wrote: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. possunt quia posse videntur
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 7/24/2009 Posts: 273
|
Jump-steady wrote:Obi 1 Kanobi wrote:@Mawinder
If I were you I would read the judgement that was used to bar Mumo (even the newspaper version). Mumo has never been charged in court with any wrong doing, he was simply barred from the seat as KACC Director General because of the allegations against him. The court held that Parliament did not sufficiently clear his name and that were he to be the DG of KACC, the public would have no trust in him.
Now extrapolate the same judgement to WR or UK and conclude. 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? @jump, what @obi1 is saying is rather obvious n plain. Spare ur head against the brick wall, those jamaas (Uk, Wr, actually just about all) r not worth it.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 4/22/2010 Posts: 11,522 Location: Nairobi
|
kenyanbeef wrote:Jump-steady wrote:Obi 1 Kanobi wrote:@Mawinder
If I were you I would read the judgement that was used to bar Mumo (even the newspaper version). Mumo has never been charged in court with any wrong doing, he was simply barred from the seat as KACC Director General because of the allegations against him. The court held that Parliament did not sufficiently clear his name and that were he to be the DG of KACC, the public would have no trust in him.
Now extrapolate the same judgement to WR or UK and conclude. 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? @jump, what @obi1 is saying is rather obvious n plain. Spare ur head against the brick wall, those jamaas (Uk, Wr, actually just about all) r not worth it. .,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. possunt quia posse videntur
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/26/2012 Posts: 15,980
|
maka wrote:kenyanbeef wrote:Jump-steady wrote:Obi 1 Kanobi wrote:@Mawinder
If I were you I would read the judgement that was used to bar Mumo (even the newspaper version). Mumo has never been charged in court with any wrong doing, he was simply barred from the seat as KACC Director General because of the allegations against him. The court held that Parliament did not sufficiently clear his name and that were he to be the DG of KACC, the public would have no trust in him.
Now extrapolate the same judgement to WR or UK and conclude. 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? @jump, what @obi1 is saying is rather obvious n plain. Spare ur head against the brick wall, those jamaas (Uk, Wr, actually just about all) r not worth it. .,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. The passing of Mumo's judgment has set precedence. Expect anything "There are only two emotions in the market, hope & fear. The problem is you hope when you should fear & fear when you should hope: - Jesse Livermore
.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/18/2011 Posts: 12,069 Location: Kianjokoma
|
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
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Politics
»
Mumo Matemu nominated as anti graft boss
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|