Good one @wazuafishmonger

The next thing you'll hear from the Jubilee sycophants is "where were you when your daughter was being raped?"

Will be back later with examples.

@McReggae.......Some of us have real jobs. We dont serve politicians chai during the day and become team Otoyos in the afternoon. I will be back. Make sure you buy bundles

First of all, lets go step by step. Any lawyer will tell you that in the laws of Kenya, the BILL OF RIGHTS take priority over all other laws in Kenya.

Read the BILL OF RIGHTS HERE

So even if the police investigate some low life and find him to be plotting some crime, either by phone conversation (How do you prove that you heard him talk about it) the laws of Kenya protect that person because he has the freedom to express themselves in speech and the authorities have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the guy had the INTENT to commit a crime.

Even if he is taken in for questioning, he is liable to get out on bail and disappear in thin air as has been the case

Lets discuss intent.

CHAPTER IV – GENERAL RULES AS TO CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

9.
Intention and motive
(1) talks about accidents - ignore that
(2)
Unless the intention to cause a particular result is expressly declared to be an element of the offence constituted, in whole or part, by an act or omission, the result intended to be caused by an act or omission is immaterial.
(3)
Unless otherwise expressly declared, the motive by which a person is induced to do or omit to do an act, or to form an intention, is immaterial so far as regards criminal responsibility.

Note the wording there, expressly Declared meaning explicitly or clearly or solely. So if Mr low life goes to a fertilizer shop and buys some nails and fertilizer or petrol, the authorities have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. low life was in the process of making a bomb, and is not a farmer who is planning on growing crops, a retailer of the same, or is purchasing these for someone etc etc. The other word, INDUCED means "succeed in persuading or influencing (someone) to do something". What if they fail, will low life argue that there was no intent?

Now to the terrorism act.



Look at how reactive that definition is. What about the process of planning? Isnt that a terrorism act. Again we are not PROACTIVE. One has to be involved, to interfere, cause prejudice etc

Now lets say that low life has been arrested and taken in for questioning

Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya provides that:

“an arrested person has the right –

(h) to be released on bond or bail on reasonable conditions pending a charge or trial unless there are compelling reasons not to be released.

Thee judiciary has lamented the lack of detailed legislative guidelines on the question of grant of bail particularly at the pre-trial stage where, in principle, the suspect/accused person is presumed innocent.

In the case of Aboud Rogo Mohammed & Another Vs Republic, Nairobi High Court Criminal Case Number 793 of 2010 Justice Ochieng went on record thus: ...Meanwhile, the court has to bear in mind the fact that; “Unfortunately, in Kenya, there are no legislative guidelines on bail. The court is left with an unfettered discretion to determine the issue.”

In Hassan Mahat Omar & Another Vs Republic, Nairobi High Court Criminal Revision No. 31 of 2013, Lady Justice L.A Achode rendered herself thus:

...What amounts to compelling reasons as envisaged in Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution is a matter of judicial discretion. Kenya does not have statutory guidelines to govern the granting of bail. However, a glimpse at pertinent laws of other common law countries such as the Bail Act of England and Section 60(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code of South Africa, gives us examples of issues to consider in determining whether or not compelling reasons exist in a given case.

Judicial Decisions on bail and bond in terrorism cases in Kenya Courts in Kenya have had occasion to render themselves on applications for bail in cases involving terrorism related charges.

It is evident from the sampled cases that court’s in Kenya have suffer serious difficulties in evolving a coherent jurisprudence on guidelines that will fill the gap of a lack of legislative guidelines on determining “compelling reasons” warranting deprivation of bail.


How do you demonstrate APPEALING to commit an terrorist act? I may read or listen to that material and I may find it garbage while the same may work for someone else.

Article 19 (3) (a) of the Constitution makes it abundantly clear that the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights belong to each individual and they are for each individual to enjoy. The limitations upon which these rights and freedoms are subject to are spelt out under Article 49(1) (h) of the Constitution, which in short if “unless there are compelling reasons to decline bail” The burden lies with the prosecution to establish what the compelling reasons are.

In Aboud Rogo Mohammed & Another Vs Republic, Nairobi High Court

Criminal Case Number 793 of 2010 Fred Ochieng J rendered himself thus:

For now, although the assertions of the state, that the applicants’ had some connection with the suicide bomber are not baseless, the court is obliged, by Article 50 (2) (a), to uphold the legal presumption, that the applicants were innocent until the contrary was proved.
Therefore, because of the said legal presumption, it is not open to me to conclude, without the benefit of evidence, that the applicants had already been connected to Al-Shabaab. If I were to so conclude, the said conclusion would be inconsistent with the presumption of innocence.

And if the legal presumption was to have tangible meaning, at this stage, I must interpret the Constitution in such a manner as to enhance the rights and freedoms granted, rather than in a manner that curtails the said right.

In the result, I find that the respondent has not demonstrated any compelling reasons to warrant the denial of bail to the applicants herein. I do therefore allow the application.

@Swenani, quoting clauses alone doesn't help. The judges and lawyers interpret every word and its meaning as stated on the law. So if a clause is vague, its works against the prosecutor, that's why sometimes the Jury system works better. But all in all. We in Kenya have no laws that work in favor of the common man. esp on terror

@my broda sweny this mjamaa has tried to break it down for you in a longuage you can understand unlike your copy pasting antics we had seen earlier(and someone here labelled it "a flash geniousness" ) you can now understand the reasons behind extra juducial murders that take place here. Our law enforcers hands are tied by this ojinga law and constitution that i was duped to vote for it.
I hope okoa kenya should also push for the jury system in our courts. I dont know of its demerits but me thinks its far much better than what we have today.

interesting - lakini mimi I pity the kenyan prosecutors, they are supposed to accomplish what even the americans wameshindwa.