limanika wrote:alma1 wrote:limanika wrote:murchr wrote:Did the court say that Waititu should step aside or just that he should not be allowed back in his office? My guess is, he can operate from Thika as this does not interfere in anyway with policy dispensation.
The ruling effectively meant that he should cease exercising powers of the office of county governor until case is heard and determined. Sadly, I note the County Government Act 2012 did not contemplate this scenario. Due to the weak legislation this ruling may be quashed by either Court of Appeal or SC.
Actually we are going too far in interpretation.
The ruling by Mumbi was specifically on the legality of the constitutionality of keeping state officials in their place of work on moral issues such as corruption. She ruled that particular section of the act was unconstitutional.
As we stand any law that violates this principle is by fact unconstitutional.
She wasn't ruling on whether governors were to be called governors when charged. She ruled on a constitutional issue.
To over turn that ruling you have to go to the Court of Appeal and I'm sure they will not touch that ruling.
Ipso facto. The problem are all these ACTS of Mpigs that have effectively been watering down the constitution.
As to whether Waititu is still governor etc, that's now for the Mpigs to fix with an act of gov't. Otherwise it is now unconstitutional for a conman to continue RUINING counties on the basis of a flawed law that Mpigs have been using to remain in power.
I think that is what the Waititu judge said over and over again.
Lawyers are free to interpret. That's how they make their money. By obfuscating and pontificating.
The ruling by Mumbi can be challenged in a higher court. Since the law protects the rights of both the accused and the accuser, I dont think the ruling will stand with the current weak legislation. There could be cases where someone with a grudge with the governor takes him/her to court and files phantom charges just so he can step aside. In this case it is not impossible to project a situation whereby so many governors (in fact all 47 of them) have been barred from office (some on phantom charges) same time and their deputies have taken over in acting capacity.
But Mumbi has stirred up debate and hopefully we'll go in the right direction in the fullness of time.
The aftermath of an unconstitutinal law can be devastating. It is not up to the courts to decide on aftermaths or lack thereof.
It's up to the legislature to come up with honest and sane laws. They knew why the put those clauses there. They are now unconstitutional.
I am sure that such a case shall not be taken up by the court of appeal as it is not unconstitutional. That's the only way the Court of Appeal takes that case. It is unconstitutional. It is not.
The only option for these governors is go straight to the Supreme Court to get a legal opinion.
These people are fried. Now every magistrate will rely on it going forward.
I may be wrong, but I find nothing unconstitutional with her ruling on that specific section of the law. So it shall stand.
Thieves are not good people. Tumeelewana?