Maraga will die severally of anxiety...

[vooke]

• Tweet

...until the repeat is held and Uhunye garners substantially different (and especially fewer) votes than Babu. That's when their decision/Determination will really be praised.

It won't matter how well reasoned their ruling is if Uhuru crosses the 50% mark by a healthy margin. Their decision will forever be remembered as a political stunt,and it may just be quoted to quash other petitions. In fact, all the four will resign.

On the other hand, should the results be reversed and Babu wins, Maraga will be beautified while still alive


The opposite can be said of the respondents legal team.

Of course some won't be convinced should Uhunye beat Babu 'twice in a year' as they are calling it. They will scrape the barrel for all sorts of flimsy excuses to maintain Maraga legend,but the world at large will forever greet and quote that decision with derision.




Determination
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2rMMQJiqMB8UV9wLXlmN0p5aEU

[Kichwa]

you are rumbling.  Have you been drinking with ouru at the SH?

...until the repeat is held and Uhunye garners substantially different (and especially fewer) votes than Babu. That's when their decision/Determination will really be praised.

It won't matter how well reasoned their ruling is if Uhuru crosses the 50% mark by a healthy margin. Their decision will forever be remembered as a political stunt,and it may just be quoted to quash other petitions. In fact, all the four will resign.

On the other hand, should the results be reversed and Babu wins, Maraga will be beautified while still alive


The opposite can be said of the respondents legal team.

Of course some won't be convinced should Uhunye beat Babu 'twice in a year' as they are calling it. They will scrape the barrel for all sorts of flimsy excuses to maintain Maraga legend,but the world at large will forever greet and quote that decision with derision.




Determination
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2rMMQJiqMB8UV9wLXlmN0p5aEU

[vooke]

you are rumbling.  Have you been drinking with ouru at the SH?

...until the repeat is held and Uhunye garners substantially different (and especially fewer) votes than Babu. That's when their decision/Determination will really be praised.

It won't matter how well reasoned their ruling is if Uhuru crosses the 50% mark by a healthy margin. Their decision will forever be remembered as a political stunt,and it may just be quoted to quash other petitions. In fact, all the four will resign.

On the other hand, should the results be reversed and Babu wins, Maraga will be beautified while still alive


The opposite can be said of the respondents legal team.

Of course some won't be convinced should Uhunye beat Babu 'twice in a year' as they are calling it. They will scrape the barrel for all sorts of flimsy excuses to maintain Maraga legend,but the world at large will forever greet and quote that decision with derision.




Determination
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2rMMQJiqMB8UV9wLXlmN0p5aEU

Yes

[MOON Ki]

...until the repeat is held and Uhunye garners substantially different (and especially fewer) votes than Babu. That's when their decision/Determination will really be praised.

It won't matter how well reasoned their ruling is if Uhuru crosses the 50% mark by a healthy margin. Their decision will forever be remembered as a political stunt,and it may just be quoted to quash other petitions. In fact, all the four will resign.

On the other hand, should the results be reversed and Babu wins, Maraga will be beautified while still alive


The opposite can be said of the respondents legal team.

Of course some won't be convinced should Uhunye beat Babu 'twice in a year' as they are calling it. They will scrape the barrel for all sorts of flimsy excuses to maintain Maraga legend,but the world at large will forever greet and quote that decision with derision.




Determination
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2rMMQJiqMB8UV9wLXlmN0p5aEU

Whether or not it gets praise should not be the basis on which to evaluate a legal decision.   What matters is the extent to which the reasoning and conclusions are based on the evidence proffered.

Even if Uhuru won in Round 2, and by even more votes, it would not necessarily tell us anything about the judgement.   I can think of several hypothetical scenarios for a victory by either side.   Some for Uhuru:

* He uses government machinery to subtly engage voter suppression.   
* Voter apathy from people who insist that "we already stood in the sun for hours".
* He uses loads of cash to, directly or indirectly, purchase votes.
* Kenyans like to be on the eating side; so, on the basis of Round 1, some voters do their probability-arithmetic and decide to change direction.
* ...

This Supreme-Court decision has astonished many---I for one didn't think they had it them to not "toe the line"---and also shocked and angered many who expected "the standard procedure".    In fact, the president and at least one senior lawyer on his "side" appear to be getting dangerously close to being completely unhinged.   True, it cannot be easy to go from jerking-off over a "victory" to looking for the nearest rope and tree. But excessive emotion, displayed so nakedly, does little good.   Nor do predictions of what will happen in Round 2 and how "the world at large will react". Much better would be to quietly absorb the shock---"deal with the pain, and focus on healing yourself", as Oprah Winfrey might say on one of her shows---and, for the good of the country, for all sides to work on ensuring less-problematic elections.   And, now that we are no longer in a dictatorship in which all can be coerced or bought,  that should include a commitment to respecting judicial decisions; do away with the notion that "the courts are good just as long as I think I have a good chance of winning".

The court's decision is an unprecedented opportunity for Kenyans to re-evaluate the circus that they call elections.   One hopes that they will make good use of it.   A good start would to be to ask hard questions of the organization called the IEBC, which gets several years and lots of money to prepare for a one-day event but still manages to bungle it in the silliest of ways.   A couple of examples, one "major" and one "minor":

* Said IEBC consistently turned down offers by KPMG to conduct penetration tests of its "new" system, which is what was used for the elections.   Did it really require a great deal of foresight to forestall "hacking" claims?

* Forms with poor security features and unsigned for good measure.   Surely, even the thickest of Returning Officers can be trained to understand that where it says "Name ... Signature" (with space provided) a name and corresponding signature are to be inserted.

[Georgesoros]

Agreed...
People like Vooke don't like fairness, rather chaos as long are they prevail. They don't believe in the rule of law, rather their kind of law where the common guy is muzzled while they smile. Such people are pathetic to the core.

...until the repeat is held and Uhunye garners substantially different (and especially fewer) votes than Babu. That's when their decision/Determination will really be praised.

It won't matter how well reasoned their ruling is if Uhuru crosses the 50% mark by a healthy margin. Their decision will forever be remembered as a political stunt,and it may just be quoted to quash other petitions. In fact, all the four will resign.

On the other hand, should the results be reversed and Babu wins, Maraga will be beautified while still alive


The opposite can be said of the respondents legal team.

Of course some won't be convinced should Uhunye beat Babu 'twice in a year' as they are calling it. They will scrape the barrel for all sorts of flimsy excuses to maintain Maraga legend,but the world at large will forever greet and quote that decision with derision.




Determination
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2rMMQJiqMB8UV9wLXlmN0p5aEU

Whether or not it gets praise should not be the basis on which to evaluate a legal decision.   What matters is the extent to which the reasoning and conclusions are based on the evidence proffered.

Even if Uhuru won in Round 2, and by even more votes, it would not necessarily tell us anything about the judgement.   I can think of several hypothetical scenarios for a victory by either side.   Some for Uhuru:

* He uses government machinery to subtly engage voter suppression.   
* Voter apathy from people who insist that "we already stood in the sun for hours".
* He uses loads of cash to, directly or indirectly, purchase votes.
* Kenyans like to be on the eating side; so, on the basis of Round 1, some voters do their probability-arithmetic and decide to change direction.
* ...

This Supreme-Court decision has astonished many---I for one didn't think they had it them to not "toe the line"---and also shocked and angered many who expected "the standard procedure".    In fact, the president and at least one senior lawyer on his "side" appear to be getting dangerously close to being completely unhinged.   True, it cannot be easy to go from jerking-off over a "victory" to looking for the nearest rope and tree. But excessive emotion, displayed so nakedly, does little good.   Nor do predictions of what will happen in Round 2 and how "the world at large will react". Much better would be to quietly absorb the shock---"deal with the pain, and focus on healing yourself", as Oprah Winfrey might say on one of her shows---and, for the good of the country, for all sides to work on ensuring less-problematic elections.   And, now that we are no longer in a dictatorship in which all can be coerced or bought,  that should include a commitment to respecting judicial decisions; do away with the notion that "the courts are good just as long as I think I have a good chance of winning".

The court's decision is an unprecedented opportunity for Kenyans to re-evaluate the circus that they call elections.   One hopes that they will make good use of it.   A good start would to be to ask hard questions of the organization called the IEBC, which gets several years and lots of money to prepare for a one-day event but still manages to bungle it in the silliest of ways.   A couple of examples, one "major" and one "minor":

* Said IEBC consistently turned down offers by KPMG to conduct penetration tests of its "new" system, which is what was used for the elections.   Did it really require a great deal of foresight to forestall "hacking" claims?

* Forms with poor security features and unsigned for good measure.   Surely, even the thickest of Returning Officers can be trained to understand that where it says "Name ... Signature" (with space provided) a name and corresponding signature are to be inserted.

[bryan275]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.zambiawatchdog.com/kenyan-chief-justice-rejected-large-bribe/amp/

[Kadame7]

Everyone with two brain cells to rub together will know that the court invalidated the outcome based on the laws of Kenya and with only a little digging, which laws. Maraga's name is FOREVER cemented in History.

If Jubilee wins with the same margin and the right process is followed, either Raila will concede based on this very ruling or he will be defeated at the Supreme Court by this same set of juges.

The only people who will think Maraga's name is in anyway "tarnished" simply because Uhuru wins again are simply those around Mt. Kenya and R.V. All over the WORLD, the Supreme Court will retain a great deal of respect and will be cited in many African courts for a long, long, LOOOONG time to come!

The only way Maraga can somehow lose the respect that has suddenly made him famous beyond Kenyan borders is if he now or in the future CONTRADICTS himself and says for God knows what reason: "the law and the process don't matter anymore."

Even if in a future case, the others vote against the same principle in a majority decision, those judges will retain their now very GOOD names who stick to the same principle, even if they become the dissenting minority.

Lastly, you yourself looked at the audit and easily saw what the right decision was. Those who didnt go as far as you will soon see all that in the judgment. How you now think a COURT OF LAW will be crucified for UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW is strange to me. They will always be praised for instilling the principle that all our instititions must make sure to FOLLOW the law in their dealings. This goes beyond elections my fren.

I hope you didn't suddenly rediscover your NASA loathing and decided to dump your objectivity . Shake it off brotha. Just stick to objectivity and you'll be fine. Even if you want Uhuru to win again its fine. They can do that the right way and Raila will be forced to concede thanks to THIS VERY judgment.

[Kadame7]

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-41123949

David Maraga: The brave judge who made Kenyan history

Kenya's Chief Justice David Maraga, and three of his colleagues, have created history by annulling the August presidential election.

It is unprecedented in Africa for an opposition court challenge against a presidential election to succeed.

Kenyans have praised Justice Maraga for having the courage to rule against the man who appointed him, President Uhuru Kenyatta, and for restoring their faith in the independence of the judiciary.

Several Kenyan papers have referred to Justice Maraga as a person of integrity, which they attribute to his being a devout Seventh-day Adventist.

He reportedly told an interview panel that if appointed Chief Justice, he would never preside over a case on a Saturday, a day of rest and worship for members of the Adventist faith.

Some have speculated that this may have been the reason the first sitting of the presidential election petition was held on a Saturday night, after the Sabbath had ended.

It is reported that while being vetted for his job, he was confronted with allegations that he had taken bribes.

He surprised the public by standing before TV cameras and swearing on a Bible that he had never taken a bribe in his life.

'Not a government project'

Justice Maraga, 66, graduated as a lawyer 40 years ago from the University of Nairobi, before going into private practice.

He was appointed a judge in 2003 and rose to join the Court of Appeal in 2012.

He is married and has three children.

Last year, following the early retirement of former Chief Justice Willy Mutunga, he beat off stiff competition from 10 other prominent judges, legal practitioners and academics to be nominated by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) to become chief justice.

However, earlier this year he is reported to have rebuked the man who appointed him - President Kenyatta.

Mr Kenyatta, while campaigning for re-election in Justice Maraga's home area, had told people that they should vote for him because his government had given "their son" a job.

The chief justice, through the JSC, stated that he was not a government project.

The president initially said he would accept the Supreme Court's ruling, although he did question why "six people [the judges] have decided that they will go against the will of the people".

However, he later said that the judges had been "paid by foreigners and other fools".

"[Chief Justice] Maraga and his thugs have decided to cancel the election. Now I am no longer the president-elect. I am the serving president... Maraga should know that he is now dealing with the serving president."

Despite the implied threat, the president does not have the power to sack the chief justice, whose single term expires when he turns 70.

My only complaint about all the love Maraga is getting is that it should be spread equally to all four judges. They were all brave.

[vooke]

The decision was bold no doubt, but it won't be tested by legalese and courage in the face of intimidation, it will be tested by results.

If Uhuru is elected by the same margins, whatever reasoning for invalidating this election were immaterial which is what Ojwang and Njoki were saying.

These two felt whatever infractions were there were insufficient. The rest thought they were more than sufficient. There will always be these sides. I felt they were really bad.  Free and fair election results will be the arbiter

[Omollo]

I am wondering how the moment the decision turned against Jubilee suddenly the court is filled with hoodlums.

[vooke]

I am wondering how the moment the decision turned against Jubilee suddenly the court is filled with hoodlums.

To be fair, both Uhuru and Babu lamented the will of millions of Kenyans being subverted or controlled by six and seven men respectively. Babu said this when vowing not to go to courts because he anticipated a thrashing while Uhunye said it after the thrashing. That was bound to happen. Uhuru is mad as hell and he needs anger management classes. Babu is over the moon but he perfectly feels him; he was there in 2013.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I am wondering how the moment the decision turned against Jubilee suddenly the court is filled with hoodlums.

To be fair, both Uhuru and Babu lamented the will of millions of Kenyans being subverted or controlled by six and seven men respectively. Babu said this when vowing not to go to courts because he anticipated a thrashing while Uhunye said it after the thrashing. That was bound to happen. Uhuru is mad as hell and he needs anger management classes. Babu is over the moon but he perfectly feels him; he was there in 2013.

But baba did it too.  Right?

[Georgesoros]

Am amazed you can't see such simple reasoning of the decision.
To you process doesn't not matter rather winning.

The decision was bold no doubt, but it won't be tested by legalese and courage in the face of intimidation, it will be tested by results.

If Uhuru is elected by the same margins, whatever reasoning for invalidating this election were immaterial which is what Ojwang and Njoki were saying.

These two felt whatever infractions were there were insufficient. The rest thought they were more than sufficient. There will always be these sides. I felt they were really bad.  Free and fair election results will be the arbiter

[Kadame7]

Am amazed you can't see such simple reasoning of the decision.
To you process doesn't not matter rather winning.

The decision was bold no doubt, but it won't be tested by legalese and courage in the face of intimidation, it will be tested by results.

If Uhuru is elected by the same margins, whatever reasoning for invalidating this election were immaterial which is what Ojwang and Njoki were saying.

These two felt whatever infractions were there were insufficient. The rest thought they were more than sufficient. There will always be these sides. I felt they were really bad.  Free and fair election results will be the arbiter

Exactly. Its basically saying that the judges were wrong not to blindly trust the results even though they had no way of knowing what the results actually were.

[vooke]

I am wondering how the moment the decision turned against Jubilee suddenly the court is filled with hoodlums.

To be fair, both Uhuru and Babu lamented the will of millions of Kenyans being subverted or controlled by six and seven men respectively. Babu said this when vowing not to go to courts because he anticipated a thrashing while Uhunye said it after the thrashing. That was bound to happen. Uhuru is mad as hell and he needs anger management classes. Babu is over the moon but he perfectly feels him; he was there in 2013.

But baba did it too.  Right?

Not just Baba, the entire NASWA brigade vowed to boycott elections if the Kiai case was ruled against them.

[vooke]

Am amazed you can't see such simple reasoning of the decision.
To you process doesn't not matter rather winning.

Process is important, but variations in process that do not affect the outcome shouldn't be valid grounds for invalidation.

What the rerun will do is test whether the so called illegalities and irregularities affected and subverted the will of the people. 4:2 they did:they didn't.

Invalidating elections at the slightest whiff of irregularity or illegality is wrong.

[Kadame7]

Am amazed you can't see such simple reasoning of the decision.
To you process doesn't not matter rather winning.

Process is important, but variations in process that do not affect the outcome shouldn't be valid grounds for invalidation.

vooke: you are a judge. Tell me how you would go about determining if the irregularities you are seeing are enough to affect the outcome.

[vooke]

Am amazed you can't see such simple reasoning of the decision.
To you process doesn't not matter rather winning.

Process is important, but variations in process that do not affect the outcome shouldn't be valid grounds for invalidation.

vooke: you are a judge. Tell me how you would go about determining if the irregularities you are seeing are enough to affect the outcome.

Among others I'd consider the numbers affected by the irregularities. For instance, how many votes are contained or reported in the missing or illegible forms 34A? 33%?

The other is,were sufficient explanations given for the irregularities? For instance presidential election total votes exceeding the nearest election by 500K? Are they convincing or not? If they are not then why should I trust them on any other number they throw.....

[Kadame7]

Am amazed you can't see such simple reasoning of the decision.
To you process doesn't not matter rather winning.

Process is important, but variations in process that do not affect the outcome shouldn't be valid grounds for invalidation.

vooke: you are a judge. Tell me how you would go about determining if the irregularities you are seeing are enough to affect the outcome.

Among others I'd consider the numbers affected by the irregularities. For instance, how many votes are contained or reported in the missing or illegible forms 34A? 33%?

The other is,were sufficient explanations given for the irregularities? For instance presidential election total votes exceeding the nearest election by 500K? Are they convincing or not? If they are not then why should I trust them on any other number they throw.....

Ok, so applying both tests, you determine that millions of votes are those you can't vouch for. You tell them to go back and vote. It turns out pretty much the same as before but this time there are no irregularities and you can vouch for them. How does that make your first decision bad? The fact that as a human being without visions of the future, you had no way to tell at that time that they were genuine?

[vooke]

Ok, so applying both tests, you determine that millions of votes are those you can't vouch for. You tell them to go back and vote. It turns out pretty much the same as before but this time there are no irregularities and you can vouch for them. How does that make your first decision bad? The fact that as a human being without visions of the future, you had no way to tell at that time that they were genuine?

The answer is simple; I thought the irregularities materially affected the outcome but now with the benefit of hindsight they didn't.