Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Omollo on December 10, 2014, 06:00:39 PM
-
I will serialize the proposed amendments and show how they are not about fighting terror but preparing the ground for mass slaughter of people for political reasons. I will not post all of it at once because I know how that causes ennui:
Now how do you deal with the next saba saba or if you rig elections and people go to the streets and the CS for internal security "bans" the demo???
5. Section 6 of the Public Order Act is amended—
(a) by inserting the following subsections
immediately after subsection (1)—
(1A) Any person who unlawfully convenes, organizes or promotes a public rally, meeting or procession or
neglects or refuses to comply with any law relating to public meetings commits an offence.
-
When we thought PCs were a thing of the past and that no power shall be wielded by unelected officials, Uhuru resurrects that power and hands it to his ministers. Instead of transferring that power to governors who are lected , he gives it to ministers. What is better than to have the IG ask a governor to declare a curfew in a given a place? Uhuru does not trust elected officials:
Section 8 of the Public Order Act is amended—
(a) in subsection (1) by—
(i) deleting the words “Commissioner of Police or Provincial Commissionerr” and substituting therefor the words "Cabinet Secretary, on the advice of the Inspector-General of the National Police Service”;
The current law reads:Curfew orders
(1)
The Commissioner of Police or a Provincial Commissioner may, if he considers it necessary in the interests of public order so to do, by order (hereinafter referred to as a curfew order) direct that, within such area (being, in the case of a Provincial Commissioner, within his province) and during such hours as may be specified in the curfew order, every person, or, as the case may be, every member of any class of persons specified in the curfew order, shall, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a written permit granted by an authority or person specified in the curfew order, remain indoors in the premises at which he normally resides, or at such other premises as may be authorised by or under the curfew order.
-
This targets bloggers like Omollo who publish photos of EJK victims that GoK does not wish to see circulated. It may also include photos of 43 KDF soldiers killed by Al Shabaab:
15. The Penal Code is amended by inserting the following new section immediately after section 66?
Publication of obscene, gory or offensive material.
66A. A person who publishes or causes to be published or distributed obscene, gory or offensive material which is likely to cause fear and alarm to the general public or disturb public peace is guilty of a felony and is liable, upon conviction, to a fine not exceeding one million shillings or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or both, or, where the offence is committed by a media enterprise, to a fine not exceeding five million shillings.
-
Some portions are NOT so bad, lets give The Devil his due before we burn him:
16. The Penal Code is amended by inserting the following new section immediately after section 128?
Offences by public officers.
128A. A public officer who in the cause of his or her employment?
(a) aids or facilitates the commission of a felony;
(b) facilitates the entry of a criminal into Kenya; or
(c) conceals the whereabouts of a criminal is guilty of a felony and is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years.
-
Na hii ya Mungiki sio mbaya hata kidogo:
251A. A person who intentionally insults the modesty of any other person by intruding upon that person’s privacy or strips such person, is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twenty years.
-
The creeping return of KANU. That is how to explain all the ammendments being sneaked in. Let hope judiciary will return those laws back to parliament.
-
This is the time to be vigilant. Moi muzzled parliament to pass laws that favored his dentention of any critic. We are watching Uhuru do the same in the name of tfighting terror. This is the time to shout at the top of your voices. Return of the police state.
-
Uhuru wants to tell the High court and Court of Appeal judges how to do their jobs. Good luck with that... The DPP should make his case in court and apply for a stay. If he convinces the judge so be it. The Judges should continue to have their prerogative to order immediate release of detainees. Uhuru does not think so.
379A. In a case where the High Court, in exercise of its original jurisdiction, has granted bail or bond to an accused person, the Director of Public Prosecution, may, as of right, appeal against that decision to the court of appeal:
Provided that if the Director of Public Prosecutions has indicated an intention to appeal the order, the order shall be stayed for a perod of fourteen days pending the filing of an appeal.
-
If you think this applies to Okemo and Barasa think again. This will legalize rendition. Now all a foreign power has to do is issue a warrant of arrest. Museveni could be persuaded to issue such a warrant against Raila. In the past this is what would happen:
7. Hearing of case and evidence
(1)When a fugitive criminal is brought before a magistrate, the magistrate shall hear the case in the same manner and have the same jurisdiction and powers, as nearly as may be, as in a trial before a subordinate court.
(2)The magistrate shall receive any evidence which may be tendered to show that the case is one to which the relevant provisions of section 16 apply or that the crime of which the prisoner is accused is not an extradition crime.
Uhuru Kenyatta proposes this:(3) Where the court is satisfied about the authenticity of the warrants and that the warrant was issued by a proper authority of the foreign country, the court shall proceed to issue a warrant of surrender without holding the proceedings as specified under section 7 of the Act.
-
Guess the implications of this:
29. Section 8 of the Registration of Persons Act is amended by inserting the following subsection
immediately after —
(1A) The Director may establish identification committees or appoint persons as identification agents to assist in the authentication of information furnished by a parent or guardian.
Currently this is what is required. This section simply means you cough out money to "authenticate" documents:8. Power to demand proof of information
A registration officer may require any person who has given any information in pursuance of this Act or rules made thereunder to furnish such documentary or other evidence of the truth of that information as it is within the power of that person to furnish.
-
The ID can be revoked at the least excuse. This can spell doom for some voters. I have no problem with that except there should be a sunset clause to these powers. I think three years after issuance should be enough. Just like many offences cannot be tried after a period, the authorities should discover the mistake withing three years after that the person would have earned his ID anyway.
In any case what is an ID? If a person is a citizen then he is entitled to an ID and Passport. If he is not then he has no rioght to this. This section is both obsolete and in the wrong place:31. The Registration of Persons Act is amended by inserting the following new section immediately after section 18—
Power to cancel registration and revoke an identity card.
18A. (1) The Director may cancel the registration and revoke the identity card of any person
issued under this Act if the card was obtained through—
(a) misrepresentation of material facts;
(b) concealment of material facts;
(c) fraudulently;
(d) forgery;
(e) multiple registration; or
(f) any other justifiable cause.
(2) Before cancellation of the registration and revocation of the identity card as provided in sub section (1), the Director shall notify the card holder of the intention to cancel the registration and revoke the card unless the holder can show cause within fifteen days why the cancellation should not be done.
(3) Any person whose registration has been cancelled and identity card revoked or whose citizenship has been otherwise
-
Laws drafted by a moron. Thanks Omollo for serliazing it. For a gov that engages in EJK..why do they need laws.Just pull out suspects and deal with them....and leave our freedoms and liberties intact.
-
The important thing to note is is 90 (ninety Days). By hook and crook, Uhuru wants to be able to detain people for 90 days without charging them. You can now be held in custody ostensibly "assisting police with their inquiries" for three months.
We know that this is what Kenyatta and Moi used to do. Three months and then you are released by the court only to be re-arrested outside and presented in a new court on what used to be shamelessly called "holding charges" where the police openly admit the charges upon which they are violating your freedom are frivolous and not to be pursued to the end. Among those who suffered under these charges include Raila Odinga, Koigi Wa Wamwere, George Anyona, Mukaru Ng'ang'a, The current Chief Justice, Maina Kinyatti... the list is endless. It is baaaack!
The Bill of rights is very clear on the time between arrest and production in court. There is no way any law can limit that. In fact the very idea of limiting rights is forbidden by the constitution. So this is an attempt to invite magistrates to disobey the constitution and then hope the matter will end up in the Supreme Court where Njoki Ndung'u will re-write what her colleagues rejected:18. The Criminal Procedure Code is amended by inserting the following new sections immediately after
36 – Remand by court.
36A. (1) Pursuant to Article 49(1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution, a police officer shall present a person who has been arrested in court within twenty-four hours after being arrested.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), if a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the detention of a person arrested beyond the twenty-four hour period is necessary, the police officer shall—
(a) produce the suspect before a court; and
(b) apply in writing to the court for an extension of time for holding the suspect in custody.
(3) In making an application under subsection (1), the police officer shall specify —
(a) the nature of the offence for which the suspect has been arrested;
(b) the general nature of the evidence on which the suspect has been arrested;
(c) the inquiries that have been made by the police in relation to the offence and any further inquiries proposed to be made by the police; and
(d) the reasons necessitating the continued holding of the suspect in custody, and shall be supported by an affidavit.
(4) In determining an application under subsection (1), the court shall consider any objection that the suspect may have in relation to the application and may—
(a) release the suspect unconditionally;
(b) release the suspect subject to such conditions as the court may impose to ensure that the suspect—
(i) does not, while on release, commit an offence, interfere with witnesses or the investigations in relation to the offence for which the suspect has been arrested;
(ii) is available for the purpose of facilitating the conduct of investigations and the preparation of any report to be submitted to the court dealing with the matter in respect of which the suspect stands accused; and
(iii) appears at such a time and place as the court may specify for the purpose of conducting preliminary proceedings or the trial or for the purpose of assisting the police with their inquiries; or
(c) having regard to the circumstances specified under subsection (6), make an order for the remand of the suspect in custody.
(5) A court shall not make an order for the remand in custody of a suspect under subsection (5)(c) unless—
(a) there are compelling reasons for believing that the suspect shall not appear for trial, may interfere with witnesses or the conduct of investigations, or commit an offence while on release;
(b) it is necessary to keep the suspect in custody for his protection, or, where the suspect is a minor, for his welfare;
(c) the suspect is serving a custodial sentence; or
(d) the suspect, having been arrested in relation to the commission of an offence, has breached a condition for his release.
(6) The court may, for the purpose of ensuring the attendance of a suspect under subsection (5)(b)(ii) or (iii),
require the suspect—
(a) to execute a bond for such reasonable amount as the court considers appropriate in the circumstances; and
(b) to provide one or more suitable sureties for the bond.
(7) Where a court makes an order for the remand of a suspect under subsection (5) (c), the period of remand shall not exceed thirty days.
(8.) A police officer who detains a suspect in respect of whom an order has been issued under subsection (5)(c) may, at any time before the expiry of the period of remand specified by the court, apply to the Court for an extension of that period.
(9) The court shall not make an order for the extension of the time for remand under subsection (8.) unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances for which an order was issued under subsection (5)(c), it is necessary to grant the order.
(10) Where the court grants an extension under subsection (10), such period shall not, together with the period for which the suspect was first remanded in custody, exceed ninety days.
-
This is what I call Giving with one hand and taking with both. It purports to provide for evidence disclosure until you read a little further and see all the qualifications and exceptions.
The defence is BTW now required to disclose all the evidence to be relied upon with no exceptions. The deck is stacked against mwananchi!
The Criminal Procedure Code is amended by inserting the following new sections immediately after 42 –
Disclosure by prosecution.
42A. (1) Pursuant to Article 50(2)(j) of the Constitution, the prosecution shall inform the accused person in advance of the evidence that the prosecution intends to rely on and ensure that the accused person has reasonable access to that evidence.
(2) The prosecution may not disclose certain evidence on which it intends to rely —
(a) if the evidence may facilitate the commission of other offences;
(b) if the evidence is sensitive and it is not in the public interest to disclose;
(c) where there are grounds to believe that disclosing such evidence might lead to an attempt being improperly made to persuade a witness to make a statement retracting his original statement, to change his story, not to appear in court or otherwise to intimidate him.
(3) Evidence shall be deemed to be in the public interest, if that evidence —
(a) touches on matters of national security;
(b) touches on the identity of an informant where there are good reasons for fearing that disclosure of the informant’s identity may place the family of the informant in danger;
(c) discloses the identity of a witness who might be in danger of assault or intimidation if his identity is known;
(d) contains details which, if they became known, might facilitate the commission of other offences or alert someone not in custody that the person was a suspect;
(e) disclose some unusual form of surveillance or method of detecting crime; and
(f) contains details of a personal nature to the maker or which might create the risk of domestic strife.
Provided that the Court may receive such evidence in Chambers and in confidence.
-
Notice that no exceptions are granted the accused. What of danger to the witnesses? What of family? Would not a person not in custody be alerted that he is a suspect? Would not informants be identified too? Are Defence witnesses immune to intimidation and other perils that are known to afflict Prosecution witnesses? What if the evidence by the defence has public interests? Or Security implications? Where is equality before the court of defence and prosecution?
160A. An accused person who has been called upon to enter his defence, shall disclose
to the prosecution the nature of his defence including witness statements and documentary evidence.
-
The law is not the problem when it comes to insecurity in Kenya. It's not even part of the problem.
In no specific order. The top three problems.
1. Corruption.
2. Corruption.
3. Corruption.
You can make all the draconian laws on the planet. Yet the askaris charged with enforcing them will not starting eating grass just because there are new laws.
-
No Comment
Police Supervision
343.(1) When a person, having been convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of three years or more is again convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a similar term or of an offence under section 345, the court may, at the time of passing sentence of imprisonment on that person, also order that he shall be subject to police supervision as provided by section 344 for a period not exceeding five years from the date of his release from prison.
(2) If the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the order shall become void.
(3) An order under this section may be made by the High Court when exercising its powers of revision.
Requirements from persons subject to police supervision.
344. (1) A court may at any time direct that a person shall, whilst subject to police supervision under section 343 and at large in Kenya, comply with all or any of the following requirements, and may vary any such directions at any time?
(a) to reside within the limits of a specified area;
(b) not to transfer his residence to another area without the written consent of the police officer in charge of that area;
(c) not to leave the area in which he resides without the written consent of the police officer in charge of that
area;
(d) at all times to keep the police officer in charge of the area in which he resides notified of the house or place in which he resides and provide his telephone and other contacts;
(e) to present himself, whenever called upon by the police officer in charge of the area in which he resides, at any place in that area specified by that officer.
(2) The Cabinet Secretary may make rules for carrying out the provisions of this section, and in particular prescribing the manner in which persons may be brought before a court for the purposes of this section.
-
It should be possible for people under police supervision to move from one police jurisdiction to another. This is to protect their ability to earn a living and guard against economic hardships leading to anti-social behavior and crime. This should also be subject to judicial review.
I also find it strange that it shall be same period for all regardless of the magnitude of the offence. This is another example of Uhuru trying to prescribe de minimis
Automatic Police Supervision
344A. (1) A person who is convicted of an offence under section 296(1), 297(1), 308 or 322 of the Penal Code the Prevention of Terrorism Act or the Sexual Offences Act shall be subject to police supervision for a period of five years from the date of his release from prison.
(2) A person who is subject to police supervision under this section shall, whilst he is so subject?
(a) reside within the limits of such area as the Commissioner of Prisons shall, in each case, specify in writing;
(b) not transfer his residence to another area without the written consent of the police officer in charge of the specified area;
(c) not leave the area in which he resides without the written consent of the police officer in charge of that area;
(d) at all times keep the police officer in charge of the area in which he resides notified of the house or place in which he resides;
(e) present himself, whenever called upon by the police officer in charge of the area in which he resides, at any place in that area specified by that officer.
Failure to comply with requirements under section 344.
345.(1) If a person subject to police supervision who is at large in Kenya fails to comply with a requirement placed upon him by or by virtue of section 344 or 344A, he shall, unless he proves to the satisfaction of the court before which he is tried that he did his best to act in conformity with the law, be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months and on a second or subsequent conviction for that offence to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months.
(2) A police officer may arrest without warrant a person whom he suspects upon reasonable grounds of having committed an offence under this
section.
-
One of the well known dirty tactics of the police all over the world is to cut corners with warrants. They achieve this by adding new addresses to those already provided to the judge at the time of issuance, backdating and post dating; altering names and titles; Extending provided limitations etc. Decent countries therefore are strict and provide for nullification in event of any mistakes as this is about The Bill of Rights.
Uhuru now allows the police to make as many "mistakes" as possible and still have their warrants and the evidence thereof admissible. That effectively allows the police to "legalize" illegal activities post facto - with the help of the courts!
346. The court may at any time amend a defect in substance or in form in an order or warrant, and no omission or error as to the time and place, and no defect in form in an order or warrant given under this Code, shall be held to render void or unlawful an act done or intended to be done by virtue of that order or warrant, provided that it is therein mentioned, or may be inferred there from, that it is founded on a conviction or judgment, and there is a valid conviction or judgment to sustain
it.
-
God help those who get acquitted of crimes by the courts because they shall not become free!
1. Go bye to a new trial. Remember Kenyan courts do not admit new evidence in appeals.
348A. (1) When an accused person has been acquitted on a trial held by a subordinate court or High Court,
or where an order refusing to admit a complaint or formal charge, or an order dismissing a charge, has been made by a
subordinate court or High Court, the Director of Public Prosecutions may appeal to the High Court or the Court of
Appeal as the case may be, from the acquittal or order on a matter of fact and law.
(2) If the appeal under subsection (1) is successful, the High Court or Court of Appeal as the case may be, may substitute the acquittal with a conviction and may sentence the accused person appropriately.
-
All the DPP has to do is to say I plan to appeal and the judges right to make a determination as to whether a man shall go free vanishes in the thin air as the accused MUST then remain behind bars for 14 days. NOT while the case is being heard! NO! While the DPP is still writing his appeal. Gone is the court's discretionary powers
Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code is amended in subsection (1) by inserting the following new paragraph immediately after paragraph (b) —
(c) in a matter where the subordinate court has granted bail to an accused person, and the Director of Public Prosecution has indicated his intention to apply for review of the order of the court, the order of the subordinate court shall be stayed for a period of fourteen days pending the filing of the application for revision.
-
Some EJK targets are choosing to protect themselves and going for armoured vehicles. By definition an armoured vehicle does not pose any danger to anybody. In fact all vehicles should be armoured. Well, the killer squads want their bullets to hit the target so:
42.The Firearms Act is amended in section 4 —
(1A) No person shall manufacture, assemble, purchase, acquire or have in his possession an armoured vehicle unless he holds a certificate of approval issued under this Act.
-
Landlords beware. If you forget to note your tenant's email address utakiona. Many landlords are illiterate and may never become aware of this law. :
21A. (1) Every landlord of premises shall keep or cause to be kept records of every tenant who rents the premises.
(2) The records to be kept under subsection (1) shall include—
(a) the name and address;
(b) the identity card or passport number;
(c) the email address;
(d) the telephone number, of the tenant and such other particulars as may be prescribed by the Cabinet Secretary in regulations.
(3) A landlord shall produce the information referred to in subsection (1) on demand to law enforcement officers.
(4) Any landlord who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand shillings, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
-
Good bye to owning land near airports. It doesn't matter who came there first. If they decided to build one near your home, I guess you will leave if an Ole Lenku decides so. I think this is targeting Somali owned properties in Nairobi.
17D. The Cabinet Secretary shall, on the recommendations of the Authority by Order published in the Gazette —
(a) impose prohibitions or restrictions on the use of any area of land or water in the vicinity of its aerodrome as may be necessary to ensure safe, secure and efficient civil aviation;
(b) provide zoning land adjacent to aerodromes for security purposes by creating two hundred and fifty metres controlled
zone from the runway centerline and not less than 50m from the airport’s outer perimeter fence
-
And some things that cannot possibly be implemented. Unless somebody is planning to retroactively implement this and embark on mass deportation of Somalis. This will lead to a new outcry and more resentment:
58. The Refugees Act is amended by inserting the following new section immediately.
Permitted number of refugees and asylum seekers in Kenya.
16A. (1) The number of refugees and asylum seekers permitted to stay in Kenya shall not exceed one hundred and fifty thousand persons.
(2) The National Assembly may vary the number of refugees or asylum seekers permitted to be in Kenya.
(3) Where the National Assembly varies the number of refugees or asylum seekers in Kenya, such a variation shall be applicable for a period not exceeding six months only.
(4) The National Assembly may review the period of variation for a further six months.
-
Finally!!! The Special Branch is BACK!!! People. It is BACK and it is FURIOUS! The NIS was denied the power to detain people based on past abuses. Now they will be reopening Nyayo House. Opio has his old job back
62. The National Intelligence Service Act is amended by inserting the following new section immediately after
section 6—
Stoppage and detention.
6A. (1) An officer of the Service may stop and detain any person whom the officer—
(a) witnesses engaging in a serious offence;
(b) finds in possession of any object or material that could be used for the commission of a serious offence; or
(c) suspects of engaging in any act or thing or being in possession of anything which poses a threat to national security.
-
Security of Tenure for Director NIS is removed. I shade no tears there. The following repealed:
10. Tenure of office
(1) The Director-General shall hold office for a term of five years and may be eligible for re-appointment for one further term.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) the President shall remove the Director-General from office on the following grounds—
(a) violation of the Constitution, this Act or any other written law including contravention of Chapter Six;
(b) gross misconduct whether in the performance of the office holders functions or otherwise;
(c) if the Director-General is convicted of an offence;
(d) physical or mental incapacity to perform the function of office;
(e) incompetence;
(f) partisan political activity; or
(g) bankruptcy.
(3) Before the removal of the Director-General under paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f) of subsection (2), the President shall appoint a Tribunal in accordance with the Second Schedule and refer the question of removal of the Director-General to the Tribunal, which shall—
(a) investigate the circumstances giving rise to the proposed removal; and
(b) make recommendations to the President.
(4) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the President may remove the Director-General at any time before the expiry of the term of office.
(5)Where a person, who was serving in the public service prior to appointment as a Director General, is subsequently removed from office under subsection (4), that person shall have the option of retiring or being deployed within the public service.
-
Though we know that the NIS has been bugging phones without warrants despite the law demanding so, here Uhuru decides to get rid of the pretence and deletes (2) below:
National Intelligence Service Act, 2012.
36. Limitation to the right to privacy
The right to privacy set out in Article 31 of the Constitution, may be limited in respect of a person suspected to have committed an offence to the extent that subject to section 42, the privacy of a person’s communications may be investigated, monitored or otherwise interfered with.
(2)The Service shall, prior to taking any action under this section, obtain a warrant under Part V.
-
Good Bye Democracy! Good Bye Constitution! Goodbye The Right to Privacy! GoodBye the right to Life! It took Uhuru lesser time than the Father to fuck the constitution (non excuses for my language)!
PART V–COVERT OPERATIONS
Authority to undertake covert operations.
42. (1) In this Part “covert operations” means measures, efforts and activities aimed at neutralizing threats against national security.
(2) Where the Director-General has reasonable grounds to believe that a covert operation is necessary to enable the Service to investigate or deal with any threat to national security or to perform any of its functions, the Director-General may, subject to guidelines approved by the Council, issue written authorization to an officer of the Service to undertake such operation.
(3) The written authorization issued by the Director-General under subsection (2)—
(a) shall be sufficient authorization to conduct the operation;
(b) may be served on any person so required to assist the Service or facilitate the covert operation or investigations required to be undertaken;
(c) may authorize any member of the Service to obtain any information, material, record, document or thing and for that purpose—
(i) enter any place or obtain access to anything;
(ii) search for or remove or return, examine, take extracts from, make copies of or record in any manner the information, material, record, documents or thing;
(iii) monitor communication;
(iv) install, maintain or remove anything; or
(v) do anything considered necessary to preserve national security; and
(d) shall be specific and shall be valid for a period of one hundred and eighty days unless otherwise extended.
-
Hahaha, we need these laws because of the levels of insecurity . Omollo this is meant to protect you unless perhaps you were planning a coup then you ll get worried.
-
Must everything be mutually exclusively. Can you not provide security while not infringe on suspect fundamental rights and freedom. How would Uhuru feel if the ICC applied these laws on his case.
You cannot ask Kenya to trust our police or nis or kdf with more powers when their second name is corruption and abuse of office.
EJK is already allowed but you know most of the time it fails because even EJK cops send to kill Alshabab will demand for bribes and protection fee...and would be EJK victim will be let free. Only those who do not pay their way get killed.What law allows alshaabab to ship weapons to kenya using lorries ferrying sugar, rice and name it all the way from Kismayu to Kenya?
My prayers is that supreme court will do the right thing and throw back these laws. And in meantime police will use these laws to demand more bribes.
Hahaha, we need these laws because of the levels of insecurity . Omollo this is meant to protect you unless perhaps you were planning a coup then you ll get worried.
-
I want to make it abundantly clear that even if it were Raila Odinga in power or my own mother, father, sister or brother in power passing these draconian laws, I would act no differently. A country must make progress and secure the ground it has covered. We went through this when Moi agreed to let go of these laws in 1997. If these were the laws keeping us safe why has it taken nearly twenty years of normal level crime? Why did not the crime immediately hit the roof hours after they were repealed?
The one man I would love to listen to is Kiraitu Murungi. He is the one who seconded the bill that repealed the laws. I will be posting the speech he made in parliament on that august occasion. He boasted that they had ended the excuse for coups d'etat and underground activities. I would want to know if he still believes the same and if not why he still belongs to an alliance that effectively made nonsense of years of efforts. He was handed multiple matusi by many in opposition who felt he was selling out. Looking at it now, Moi went a very long distance to get rid of those laws. He had discovered the power of negotiation and compromise. He realized you could talk to The Devil and find a Lowest Common Denominator and from there agree on the Highest Common Denominator. He no longer needed those laws which meant using force to achieve nothing and create more resentment when he could use peaceful means and get a long queue of politicians outside state house gates seeking an audience - some at night.
-
It is saddening. I am okay with usual politicking from all sides but there are issues we need to draw the line. Sadly most of us cannot make distinction from politics and real national cross-cutting fundamental issues. The bill of rights is MORE IMPORTANT than anything else in the constitution and it's where we need to draw the line.
I want to make it abundantly clear that even if it were Raila Odinga in power or my own mother, father, sister or brother in power passing these draconian laws, I would act no differently. A country must make progress and secure the ground it has covered. We went through this when Moi agreed to let go of these laws in 1997. If these were the laws keeping us safe why has it taken nearly twenty years of normal level crime? Why did not the crime immediately hit the roof hours after they were repealed?
The one man I would love to listen to is Kiraitu Murungi. He is the one who seconded the bill that repealed the laws. I will be posting the speech he made in parliament on that august occasion. He boasted that they had ended the excuse for coups d'etat and underground activities. I would want to know if he still believes the same and if not why he still belongs to an alliance that effectively made nonsense of years of efforts. He was handed multiple matusi by many in opposition who felt he was selling out. Looking at it now, Moi went a very long distance to get rid of those laws. He had discovered the power of negotiation and compromise. He realized you could talk to The Devil and find a Lowest Common Denominator and from there agree on the Highest Common Denominator. He no longer needed those laws which meant using force to achieve nothing and create more resentment when he could use peaceful means and get a long queue of politicians outside state house gates seeking an audience - some at night.
-
Pundit
You know at the root of this problem is the fact that there is not a single person in the current government who remembers Joseph (of the Old Testament who had ruled Egypt as an adopted Prince and heir of the Pharao).
At best he has KANU apparatchiks - former DOs (Kimemia), Mandarins (Kinyua) etc. At worst he has persons who had no idea what was going on in the country. I believe Sonko was either in prison or conning somebody. So Uhuru who at the time was a blind alcoholic, has no idea what these changes mean.
-
Yes Kibaki is much better than these tolders;and kibaki nearly dragged kenya into pev; running gov in africa require wisdom or else you have coups,dictatorship and all sort of messes; the quality of uhuru advisors is a very worrying. I doubt there is one intellectual with phd in anything near him. Prof Kagwanja of PNU is an outsider. The guy is sorrounded either by his elite buddies of st marys or similar crooks from outside..and the only real input coming is from wakina gen matumbo. They seem to have even shoved aside the mortician AG. Sonko and Kuria seem to be driving the agenda.
Pundit
You know at the root of this problem is the fact that there is not a single person in the current government who remembers Joseph (of the Old Testament who had ruled Egypt as an adopted Prince and heir of the Pharao).
At best he has KANU apparatchiks - former DOs (Kimemia), Mandarins (Kinyua) etc. At worst he has persons who had no idea what was going on in the country. I believe Sonko was either in prison or conning somebody. So Uhuru who at the time was a blind alcoholic, has no idea what these changes mean.
-
What is your prognosis? Do you think Kuria and Sonko can run a nation?
My prediction is that he will be shoved aside in a coup not by Raila or Opposition but by persons close to him who may have greater disdain for him than us. Karangi could but give he has become to obvious, I can see some serious minded Kikuyu Officer shoving them all to a common grave and blaming mutinous soldiers, killing a few loyalists and claiming he had killed the killers. end of story.
-
It's not happening. Our KDF are eating too much to be opinionated. The only challenge for Uhuru is 2017 elections. This will be his second ran and as always you expect a lot of disillusioned folks like me voting elsewhere...so he will try to rig like Kibaki...and this time CORD will not go to court...so we will have PEV REDUX...Uhuru unlike Kibaki will not hesistate to drive the country to precipe.
The next and only challenge for Uhuru and our beloved nation is 2017 election..which is mere 2yrs from now.
Will gov even have room to think of handing power..or they are thinking they are invincible? Personally despite the opinion polls,my MOAS tell me, they have to be worried, the luhyas are united behind CORD...there is nothing UhuRuto can do to appease Luhyas...they left maDVD and Wamalwa to be eaten alive. In Kamba..Jubilee have a weak point..but in Isaac-Zakayo-Kipsigis are restless...COAST and NEP with terrorism...forget it.
In short the country is 50-50 and just buying time for a meltdown in 2017. Raila contrary to opinion poll has eaten Amani's 4% and is now neck to neck with Uhuru...49% versus 49%.
What is your prognosis? Do you think Kuria and Sonko can run a nation?
My prediction is that he will be shoved aside in a coup not by Raila or Opposition but by persons close to him who may have greater disdain for him than us. Karangi could but give he has become to obvious, I can see some serious minded Kikuyu Officer shoving them all to a common grave and blaming mutinous soldiers, killing a few loyalists and claiming he had killed the killers. end of story.
-
Interesting. What could Uhuru offer Kambas to vote for him? He has two powerful forces there - Ngilu and Kalonzo. Just like Raila and Kibaki learned, you can't have both in one basket at any given time. So Uhuru keeps Ngilu and her dwindling fortunes or he takes kalonzo and dumps Ngilu who walks away with a larger portion including sympathy votes and those who will see Kalonzo as traitor again.
If they choose the open nomination and allow Wetangula to run equally against Raila, Kalonzo, Joho, and somebody from NEP, and stretch it for a long time but be tightly knit, they have it on a platter. I would have gone for a revolution. Get somebody from Coast (not Joho) may be governor Mvuria and back him. A total stranger who TNA would have a problem researching and who can then benefit from the CORD machine. That is however not possible. Raila, like Sata and Gbagbo wants to take one last stab at power.
I doubt the 50:50. NEP and large part of Coast that voted Jubilee are going out thanks to this new bill. Duale is history. He will never see the inside of parliament the rest of his life. He better collect his money and start investing in business because his legal practice was backed by Somalis with grievances and they will not trust him even after he leaves office. He has a hostile governor on the ground working daily to undermine him. A governor armed with unlimited Devolution cash. All in all it is not just Amani that ODM swallowed. Jubilee has lost even if ODM has not inherited.
-
You have got this absolutely right. The consensus from the grassroots to the top is that the courts played their only ace in 2013. Like Gicheru in 2007, Mutungi will wait for a petition to throw away he will never see it. We know Jubilee will use somebody like Mung'aro to file a friendly petition. But we know Kibaki tried the same in 2007 so that is not an issue.
Our biggest concern is Raila's tendency to want to talk and compromise. We are pushing to ensure that no compromise is the mantra.
You say Uhuru is willing to take the country to the precipice. We are ready to go beyond the precipice in to the abyss itself. We have seen enough arrogance.
About ICC, they can go to hell. Once we have power, we shall do what Uhuru and Bashir did. They are not the only ones to learn lessons. I will personally advocate not for the harming of civilians but targeting the oppressive Jubilee machinery. We have had enough time to prepare. And if they call us terrorists, we shall say we are fighting a dictatorship. Balanced.
so he will try to rig like Kibaki...and this time CORD will not go to court...so we will have PEV REDUX...Uhuru unlike Kibaki will not hesitate to drive the country to precipe.
-
It's too early to do tribal maths but i'd say Uhuru enjoys advantage of incumbency (and of course the disadvantage of having to deliver promises and get blamed for everything wrong) but CORD have 3 of the big 5 in their corner.
Interesting. What could Uhuru offer Kambas to vote for him? He has two powerful forces there - Ngilu and Kalonzo. Just like Raila and Kibaki learned, you can't have both in one basket at any given time. So Uhuru keeps Ngilu and her dwindling fortunes or he takes kalonzo and dumps Ngilu who walks away with a larger portion including sympathy votes and those who will see Kalonzo as traitor again.
If they choose the open nomination and allow Wetangula to run equally against Raila, Kalonzo, Joho, and somebody from NEP, and stretch it for a long time but be tightly knit, they have it on a platter. I would have gone for a revolution. Get somebody from Coast (not Joho) may be governor Mvuria and back him. A total stranger who TNA would have a problem researching and who can then benefit from the CORD machine. That is however not possible. Raila, like Sata and Gbagbo wants to take one last stab at power.
I doubt the 50:50. NEP and large part of Coast that voted Jubilee are going out thanks to this new bill. Duale is history. He will never see the inside of parliament the rest of his life. He better collect his money and start investing in business because his legal practice was backed by Somalis with grievances and they will not trust him even after he leaves office. He has a hostile governor on the ground working daily to undermine him. A governor armed with unlimited Devolution cash. All in all it is not just Amani that ODM swallowed. Jubilee has lost even if ODM has not inherited.
-
The incumbency advantage is reduced by the presence of devolution. He is no longer the centre of largesse as governors also dish it out. CORD's main problem is the media. They have to either own their own TV or convert one of the major ones before 2017. Jubilee is able to arm twist the entire media to blackout CORD as we saw with saba saba and to drown them as we saw with the "Accept and Move On".
It is a major challenge. Raila can sort it out by drawing on his international contacts to help him start a private TV station with the capacity for satellite broadcast in event the local transmitters are disabled. He can borrow leaf from the Serbian Opposition to Milosevic which suffered in a blitz of nationalist fervour against one of the precursors to the ICC. In that case the US came to their aid by using their satellites to beam signals all over Serbia and thus gave the Serbs an alternative view.
It's too early to do tribal maths but i'd say Uhuru enjoys advantage of incumbency (and of course the disadvantage of having to deliver promises and get blamed for everything wrong) but CORD have 3 of the big 5 in their corner.
-
CORD's biggest threat and enemy is CORD.
-
CORD's biggest threat and enemy is CORD.
Do you have a problem with voluntary self-destruction? :D