hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

...http://www.nation.co.ke/News/Kadhi%20courts%20illegal%20judges%20rule/-/1056/924614/-/rcndgfz/-/index.html
I hope this does not in any way interfere with the constitution timetable...ama?

There has been a case on this matter lying in the courts since 2004.

Is it true that such are ruling has been passed?

Asssuming it is true, I doubt it would negate inclusion of the the Kadhis courts in a constitution that is yet to be subjected to a referundum.
All the same we would have to see the arguments advanced by the judge.

In this forum we don't peddle rumours or lies.

It was deemed illegal in the current constitution and seen as discriminatory. Nevertheless, the judges have reserved their decision on whether it should be included in the proposed constitution.

I am sure they are playing it safe and do not want to cause any unnecessary confusion and problems to the constitution making process.

These are things we want to deal with later..

...brari uji baridi...

hehehehehehe .....Judge=Brari Uji Baridi

you cannot force everyones culture and religion into article 45 of the draft (as long as they do not conflict with constitution) except for muslims.

Mwenza, At first i thought you were trying not to please anyone and thus creating controversy, but now having confirmed the breaking news i say, peace be with you. Now this whole thing is totally taking a different turn. What if now the court rules in favour of Omtata???

the clueless kenyan judiciary strikes again.

i would wait to read the ruling/judgement but i find it funny that a PROVISION in the CONSTITUTION can be found illegal (unconstitutional?). how so when the constitution is 'allegedly' the supreme law of the land?

and what will be next? the bill of rights? the proposed affirmative action for women and those with disabilities in the proposed constitution?

problem with the kenyan judiciary is that at times they live in their own worlds and are never pragmatic - what if the sultan (given the historical context of the kadhi courts' inclusion in the constitution) talks of breaches and independence? or maybe some people from the coastal strip were to go to court and some judges decide that 'there is material breach' and reason enough for that strip to be independent?