wazua Sat, Mar 28, 2026
Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Log In

9 Pages«<56789>
WILL YOU VOTE FOR THE PROPOSED DRAFT CONSTITUTION?
Jangwa la Jangili
#61 Posted : Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:12:21 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 10/9/2009
Posts: 311
I dont agree with the Church's position.

But IMHO, the problem we have now is because of what may have been an erroneous decision by the COE. Because of the fear that almost everybody nowadays has of Islamic fundamentalism, no one wants to seem to be in conflict with Islam. Nowadays, it is fashionable for 'enlightened' folks to openly criticize any other religion EXCEPT Islam. I recall a certain interview a few months ago where Rama Yang was waxing all intelligent about the contradictions in church history (he was out of topic by the way) but the wuss would not dare say a thing against Islam. Obviously he feared meeting a suicide bomber as he exited I&M Building. There are enough contradictions in all faiths to go around.

Anyway, back to the point. What we could be seeing now is a reaction by the church based on a perception of being ignored. Basically, E.G.O. Yet declaring Kadhi courts as contentious would have diffused the whole matter altogether as the churches would have been forced to at least cede some ground. It would also have placed the debate in the public domain so that people see there is really no harm in having the courts. Right now few people even know the difference if any between the Kadhi courts now and the courts in the draft.

Kwa ufupi, I think declaring it contentious would have demystified Kadhis Courts. Think about the attraction to the forbidden. Same thing here.

By the way @Magigi, Captain amesema iko sawa kabisa. smile
Katika Jangwa la Jangili ndipo Pwagu hupata Pwaguzi.
Fundaah
#62 Posted : Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:21:09 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 11/19/2008
Posts: 1,267
sasa Captain amesema smile


Statement by Rt. Hon. Raila Amolo Odinga, Prime Minister of Kenya

RELEASED AT NAIROBI, THIS WEDNESDAY APRIL 7TH, 2010


On Thursday, April 1st, 2010, Parliament unanimously passed the Proposed Constitution without any amendments. This was historic in view of the 150 proposed amendments that MPs had attempted to introduce but which failed to attract the number required for such amendments to be approved by the House.

After the KIA retreat, the only place where amendments could legally be made was Parliament. But the MPs were unable to reach consensus and vote for any of the 150 proposed amendments. Parliament’s unanimous adoption of the Draft Constitution was both a loud endorsement and reflective of the popular demand by the people of Kenya that MPs should not mutilate what the people have now adopted as their Constitution.

As the Honourable Speaker Kenneth Marende repeatedly reminded MPs during that historic debate, the law is crystal clear: once adopted, the Draft Constitution MUST be handed over to the Attorney General for publication without any amendments or alterations and onward remittal to the people to ratify at a referendum. I understand that the Speaker is delivering the Draft Constitution to the Attorney General today.

Once Parliament adopts the Draft Constitution – even by a simple majority – it must be subjected to a referendum. This is because the Constitution belongs to the people of Kenya; not to a few individuals or leaders.

Kenyans are aware that no Constitution is perfect, especially a product of protracted and intense negotiations like ours. Imperfect as it maybe, the Draft Constitution is still qualitatively much better than the current Constitution. With its aspirational preamble; progressive bill of rights; reformative chapter on land; transformative devolution and representative clauses; and inspirational transitional clauses; the Draft Constitution will entrench equity, equality, rights and freedoms hitherto dreamed of but unrealized by the people.

Whatever deserving amendments we might desire can be made later like the Americans, South Africans and Canadians have done over the years. Kenyans must accept that constitution-making is a process; not an event.

Inevitably, some people will find something with which they are happy and something with which they are disappointed. The delicate nature of constitution-making entails that not everyone will be completely satisfied with the Draft Constitution. We can never have a Draft that will please every single one of the 40 million plus Kenyans. Therefore, opening up the document at this late stage for renegotiation will not bring consensus; it will fester confusion and recrimination. Indeed, it might even undermine the entire process.

The general wish of the overwhelming majority of Kenyans is reflected in the Draft Constitution. No one should pretend that they are the only ones who can gauge and determine what the country needs. None of us can hold the country at ransom by threatening to shoot down the Draft at the referendum.

In view of the foregoing, I wish to state clearly and unequivocally that I support the Draft Constitution the way it is and will strongly campaign for its ratification by Kenyans.

I appeal specifically to political, religious and civil society leaders to set aside all disagreements they might have over the Draft Constitution and forge a common front. This is not about political supremacy or the 2012 presidential campaign; it is about the interests of all Kenyans.

It is also not about political parties, ethnic groups, religious affiliations or sectarian interests; it is about all of us, together. Each one of us must be ready to give up something for the general good. There is no place for secret deals, conspiracies or mutilations!

If we fail to rise up to the occasion, we might not get another chance to bring a new constitutional dispensation to this country. And we cannot and must not do that!

The Constitution of Kenya Review Act (2008) set out a clear roadmap for this process. Everyone knows that the stage we have reached does not allow any more drafting or amendments. And since we must adhere to the rule of law and constitutionalism in this country, it is imperative that we adhere strictly to the legal roadmap as set out in the Review Act.

Let me be clear: Raila Odinga will not support or be party to an attempt by anyone or any group of people out to derail or mutilate the Draft Constitution!

Finally, I urge all Kenyans to support the Draft Constitution at the referendum and vote a resounding YES.
Thank you. God bless Kenya.
Isaiah 65:17-Look! I am creating new heavens and a new earth, and no one will even think about the old ones anymore
Prof.J.T.Ouma
#63 Posted : Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:32:54 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 2/1/2009
Posts: 31
My question is: Why should this constitution not protect the muslim lady who wants her issues of "inheritance, marriage, divorce and personal status" determined by an impartial, secular law not have her rights protected under the constitution to do so?

Why are we further enslaving those who may find it hard to escape the yoke of religious laws (especially knowing how controlling Islam can be) they do not want, rather than free them through the constitution?

This constitution is not about the next election, or pacifying a religious group at the expense of "Asha Suleiman", it is not about a quick fix but about posterity and a guarantee to Kenyans of an opportunity to live a life they can call their own and prosper in it.

The shallowness behind the accommodation of khadhis (partial sharia) courts is gravitating my strong intellect towards a NO!

Noble wrote:

The jurisdiction of a Kadhi’s court shall be limited to the determination
of questions of Muslim law relating to personal status, marriage, divorce
or inheritance in proceedings in which all the parties profess the Muslim
religion and submit to the jurisdiction of the Kadhi’s courts.

Fundaah
#64 Posted : Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:42:44 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 11/19/2008
Posts: 1,267
The idea of not having to come to Nairobi to search for jobs is encouraging...when devolution comes to effect...may be and I say may be the many degrees going to waste in form of unemployment in the cities will now be worth the sweat....@Niando's fear of regional governments leading to chaos will be unreal....



Women will be more empowered ....senate and parliament will check the president hence @Niando's fear of imperial president should subside...

This Draft is good ....BUT the Leaders will have to follow the law and the Led will have to STOP supporting corrupt Leaders for it to bear any fruits .

Abortion by choice is not and will not be allowed in the constitution now or in future.....

Let Kadhis courts be ....God gave man Choice ....some chose good others chose evil .... but HE ,the Mighty one ,is the judge ...Let not man a Judge
Isaiah 65:17-Look! I am creating new heavens and a new earth, and no one will even think about the old ones anymore
Intelligentsia
#65 Posted : Wednesday, April 07, 2010 3:22:30 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 10/1/2009
Posts: 2,436
Yes a great chunk of the draft is good.
My only beef is with the armed forces being allowed to go on strike.
Compared to so many other 3rd world nations, we are blessed that our military is professional enough to stay in the barracks and takes orders from a civilian head of state without problems and generally not dabble in politics at all.
Why in the sweet name of Jesus then do we even remotely consider tinkering with this status quo that so many other countries ruled by military juntas yearn for desperately. Heck, even allowing the police the right to go on strike is a no no world over with very few, if any exceptions. So to give the military ideas in so cavalier a manner to me smacks of recklessnes and a lack of thinking the entire idea through. To include this proviso means we have taken the military's non-partisan/apolitical status for granted and that scares me...because we should be consolidating their apolitical role rather than encouraging mutinies.
the logic,if any, of the smart alec who included this clause simply eludes me.
poundfoolish
#66 Posted : Wednesday, April 07, 2010 3:36:12 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 12/2/2009
Posts: 2,458
Location: Nairobi
@Intell

I think it expressly prohibits any members of the uniformed/disciplined forces to engage in such.. i believe the beef here was on the terms uniformed or was it disciplined?
somebody was arguing uniformed could include G4S, thus the draft needed to expressly refer to the armed forces..and list them...

im not sure.. somebody shed some light on that one
poundfoolish
#67 Posted : Wednesday, April 07, 2010 4:09:03 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 12/2/2009
Posts: 2,458
Location: Nairobi
Kumbaff... ati who go on what..

If @mlefu what you say is true then tafadhali, change my vote to a 'NO'...

forget the Arbotion and Kadhis and Land and whatever else anybody else has.. nimesema Hapana!!!!
the sage
#68 Posted : Thursday, April 08, 2010 6:33:50 AM
Rank: Member

Joined: 11/20/2008
Posts: 367
@All this is a perfect example of sacerdotal tyranny. The Church is being both petty and contemptible. It failed the country during the last election, and the previous referendum.
I think that we should ignore them period. They have no vision for this country.
Fundaah
#69 Posted : Thursday, April 08, 2010 7:16:28 AM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 11/19/2008
Posts: 1,267
24Limitation of rights and fundamental freedoms. (1) A right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights shall not be limited
except by law, and then only to the extent that the limitation is reasonable
and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity,
equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including—
(a) the nature of the right or fundamental freedom;
(b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation;
(c) the nature and extent of the limitation;
(d) the need to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental
freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and
fundamental freedoms of others; and
(e) the relation between the limitation and its purpose and whether there
are less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.
(2) Despite clause (1), a provision in legislation limiting a right or fundamental
freedom —
(a) in the case of a provision enacted or amended on or after the effective
date, is not valid unless the legislation specifically expresses the
intention to limit that right or fundamental freedom and the nature and
extent of the limitation;
(b) shall not be construed as limiting the right or fundmental freedom
unless the provision is clear and specific about the right or freedom to
be limited and the nature and extent of the limitation; and
(c) shall not limit the right or fundamental freedom so far as to derogate
from its core or essential content.
(3) The State or a person seeking to justify a particular limitation shall
demonstrate to the court, tribunal or other authority that the requirements of
this Article have been satisfied.
(4) The provisions of this Chapter on equality shall be qualified to the extent
strictly necessary for the application of Muslim law before the Kadhi’s
courts, to persons who profess the Muslim religion, in matters relating to
personal status, marriage, divorce and inheritance.
(5) Despite clause (1) and (2), a provision in legislation may limit the
application of the rights or fundamental freedoms in the following
provisions to persons serving in the Kenya Defence Forces or the National
Police Service––(
a) Article 31 – Privacy;
(b) Article 36 – Freedom of association;
(c) Article 37 – Assembly, demonstration, picketing and petition;
(d) Article 41 – Labour relations;
(e) Article 43 – Economic and social rights;
(f) Article 49 – Rights of arrested persons


Freedom of association
36. (1) Every person has the right to freedom of association, which includes the
right to form, join or participate in the activities of an association of any
kind.
(2) A person shall not be compelled to join an association of any kind.
(3) Any legislation that requires registration of an association of any kind shall
provide that—
(a) registration may not be withheld or withdrawn unreasonably; and
(b) there shall be a right to have a fair hearing before a registration is
cancelled.



Article 24 limits freedoms of armed forces such as those in article 36

Read the whole draft not selective reading
Isaiah 65:17-Look! I am creating new heavens and a new earth, and no one will even think about the old ones anymore
Intelligentsia
#70 Posted : Thursday, April 08, 2010 8:20:22 AM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 10/1/2009
Posts: 2,436
'Despite clause (1) and (2), a provision in legislation may limit the..'

that is precisely the point!

For Article 36 above to apply for the armed forces, legislation has to be in place specifically and expressly barring the said freedom of expression for the uniformed forces. The draft as-is merely PROVIDES for such legislation meaning in the absence of such legislation then the whole of article 24 - and the freedom to association therein - applies. That means as soon as it is law the armed forces can legally go on strike (read mutiny).
9 Pages«<56789>
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.

Copyright © 2026 Wazua.co.ke. All Rights Reserved.