Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: vooke on September 28, 2017, 05:42:23 PM
-
Felt like I should share this so we can separate bullshiet from Facts.
Jubilee’s Idea of electoral reforms is stretching and flexing the laws around SCOK indictment
I’ll be sharing at some of these amendments and their implication. They be many so help me God
Election Laws (Amendment) Bill
http://www.parliament.go.ke/the-national-assembly/house-business/bills/item/download/3957_450ed128f2d86fe0db7dedde69c1a1b8
Closely related to this is the Election Offences (Amendment) Bill No. 38 of 2017
http://www.parliament.go.ke/the-national-assembly/house-business/bills/item/download/3956_b1482ca6ce1a116370d5661f36ba66d7
-
(https://s26.postimg.org/5qqv7tq7d/14_FF1651-_D175-485_F-9_C26-3_E8_F9_D1_A0_F13.jpg)
The very definition of the chairperson has changed from Chebu to include vice chair or any other commissioner designated as the chairperson.
Amending section 6. Vice chairperson assumes the powers of the chairperson is the chairperson is absent for any reason
(https://s26.postimg.org/40cfk2y21/4_EAA4_CCE-6_DD0-4042-8_FD7-_BB803_D0_F305_C.jpg)
Benefits?
The commission is not paralyzed should Chebu go berserk
Risks
The chairperson will cede his powers at the will of State House. If they don’t like him, they will just ‘absence’ him.
If Jubilee is so concerned with business continuity, all they need is to sit the commission down and demand their operations manual. If satisfied that there are serious continuity gaps, they should demand that these be filled. Else this is pure micromanagement of IEBC.
So much for negroes which pretend to pay lip service to independent institutions. I read mischief
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKzn1f3XoAIPOLQ.jpg)(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKzn0NVX0AAbsEh.jpg)(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKzn3FgX0AEePYJ.jpg)(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKzn4htWkAAQsw2.jpg)
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKzoD22WAAAbt8y.jpg)
-
I am glad parliament is providing leadership as the country trudge along under a misguided IEBC and naive judiciary. These amendment are the anti-dote to scheme to defeat the will of people through NUSU MKATE nefarious plans. Sadly the ammendment in judiciary requires a referendum - and hopefully this can be done immediately after this election.
-
The laws says the following in simple terms:
Firstly,If chebukati fails to announce the results or resigns before October 26,2017,the vice chair nkatha who is not a lawyer will announce Uhuru as winner.
Secondly,IEBC has 7 commissioners and majority vote will prevail incase of disagreement withing the commission,If Akombe,Wafula and Mwachanya (NASA) oppose the results being transmitted,Nkatha,Guliye,Bolu and Kurgat (Jubilee) will go on and announce uhuru Kenyatta as winner,
Thirdly,If presiding officers from NASA strongholds refuse to sign form 34As incase NASA boycotts the election,they will be jailed for a term of 5 years.
Fourthly,If the IEBC system is hacked or fails to work,iebc will use manual results to announce winner,
Without Prejudice.
-
Duale v Otiende
-
Explain the highlighted further. I did not understand. Thanks in advance
The laws says the following in simple terms:
Firstly,If chebukati fails to announce the results or resigns before October 26,2017,the vice chair nkatha who is not a lawyer will announce Uhuru as winner.
Secondly,IEBC has 7 commissioners and majority vote will prevail incase of disagreement withing the commission,If Akombe,Wafula and Mwachanya (NASA) oppose the results being transmitted,Nkatha,Guliye,Bolu and Kurgat (Jubilee) will go on and announce uhuru Kenyatta as winner,
Thirdly,If presiding officers from NASA strongholds refuse to sign form 34As incase NASA boycotts the election,they will be jailed for a term of 5 years.
Fourthly,If the IEBC system is hacked or fails to work,iebc will use manual results to announce winner,
Without Prejudice.
-
(https://s26.postimg.org/dcqv9mme1/33_B7_A3_D8-1_F50-4244-9_A4_E-_D385164_FB7_F3.jpg)
The paragraph 5
5. The quorum for the conduct of business at a meeting of the Commission shall be at least five members of the Commission.
Meeting quorum drops from 5 to 3
Decision making
7. Unless a unanimous decision is reached, a decision on any matter before the Commission shall be by concurrence of a majority of all the members.
Majority decision can theoretically be made by two down from 4
Why lol this fudging with quorum?
-
Lawyer Muthomi Thiankolu breaks it down...
Here is my take on the Election Laws (Amendment) Bill that is currently before Parliament and why it is STUPID
1. The proposed amendment to the definition of “chairperson” of the IEBC (as read with the proposed amendment to section 6 of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Act) offends the Constitution in two ways. First, the amendment conflates “chairperson” with “member” of the IEBC when article 250 (2) of the Constitution envisions that every constitutional commission shall have a chairperson and members. Secondly, the amendment would effectively/potentially enable an ordinary member of the IEBC to declare presidential election results when article 138 (10) of the constitution reserves this function to the chairperson of the Commission. The question here is whether Parliament can enact a law that permits an ordinary member of a commission to perform a function which the Constitution vests in the chairperson of the Commission.
2. The proposed amendment to section 6 (1) of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Act will remove the requirement for the IEBC chairperson to be a lawyer who is qualified to be a Judge of the Supreme Court. The amendment will also permit persons who are not lawyers to be appointed chairperson of the IEBC. While there is nothing patently wrong about allowing other professionals to head the IEBC, its constitutional and statutory functions naturally point to the need to have a serious legal mind heading the Commission. The amendment also departs from established norm not just in Kenya but in most countries with a common law legal system.
3. The proposed amendment to paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Act will reduce the quorum for transacting business at the IEBC from five to three members. While this may be technically tenable, there is a problem. The total membership of the IEBC is seven. If three constitute a quorum, it means a minority composition of the IEBC could make decisions that bind the majority. In practical terms, with the quorum reduced to three, it means two commissioners could make binding decisions for the IEBC when the law provides for a membership of seven. Matters get even more interesting with the proposed amendment to paragraph 7 of the same schedule, which allows a majority of the members present and voting to make binding decisions for the IEBC. Whether this is unconstitutional, democratic or even logical is debate for another day.
4. The proposed deletion of section 29 of the Elections Act will enable a presidential candidate to be nominated by persons from different political parties. It will also allow independent candidates to be nominated by persons who are members of political parties. This amendment is unconstitutional to the extent that it makes nonsensical the political party system as the mainstream mechanism for canvasing for elective offices. It will also erode the idea of discipline and loyalty to and within political parties.
5. The proposed section 39 (1D) of the Elections Act (and the related amendments) states that in the event of discrepancy between electronically transmitted and manually transmitted results, the manually transmitted results shall prevail. The amendment is misconceived and arguably unconstitutional in three cardinal respects. First, it ignores the historical context for the use of technology in our elections as set out in the Kriegler Report. Remember the late Samuel Kivuitu lamenting that some returning officers had disappeared with the manual results in 2007, including returning officers just a stone’s throw from the national tallying centre? Secondly, the proposed section assumes that the manual election results are incapable of manipulation, contrary to what we painfully learnt in 2007. Put differently, a mischievous presiding or returning officer could electronically transmit the correct election result but manually transmit a fraudulent result, making a complete mockery of this amendment. Thirdly, the amendment runs afoul of the provisions of article 86 (d) of the Constitution, which requires the IEBC to put in place appropriate structures and mechanisms to eliminate electoral malpractice. Indeed, the infusion of technology into our electoral processes was largely informed by this constitutional imperative.
6. The proposed amendment to section 44 (5) of the Elections Act will make it possible to hold sham elections. In particular, it will remove the obligation on the part of the IEBC to (inter alia) test, certify and audit its ICT system. It will also remove the obligation to grant access to the electoral system software source codes. It is not hard to see what inspired this proposed amendment. It stems from dissatisfaction with the orders made by the Supreme Court granting the Petitioner partial access to the IEBC’s electronic systems and platforms. I don’t know why anyone who believes in free, fair and transparent elections would want to make the amendment, but that is a debate for another day.
7. The proposed amendments to section 83 of the Elections Act are unconstitutional in multiple respects. First, they purport to require persons who file an election petition to prove both non-compliance with the principles set out in the Constitution and that such non-compliance affected the results. This offends the provisions of Article 2 (4) of the Constitution. It also offends the provisions of Articles 10, 38, 81 and 86 of the Constitution. In short, it creates room for the holding of sham elections, such as those we have witnessed in Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda etc. Secondly, the amendments purport to excuse all irregularities in election declaration forms as long as they are not calculated to mislead. The thing is, only the respective presiding or returning officers would know whether the irregularities were designed to mislead. The amendments would also permit the situation we saw at the Supreme Court, where one could not tell the official Forms from the unofficial or forged ones.
8. The proposed section 86A of the Elections Act purports to say who can and who cannot run in a fresh election in the event a presidential election is nullified by the Supreme Court. The problem here is that there is no constitutional basis for purporting to restrict who can and who cannot run in the fresh election. Further, the proposed amendment is based on obita dicta from the discredited decision in Presidential Election Petition No. 5 of 2013. The thing is, of the various types of “fresh election” envisioned in article 138 to 140 of the Constitution, only one has a constitutional limitation on who can run and who cannot run. The one addressed by the proposed amendment is not one of them.
9. The proposed section 6A of the Election Offences Act seeks to punish presiding and returning officers who are responsible for errors and omissions in election result declaration forms. The penalty is imprisonment for a term of five years. The ironical bit is that according to the amendment bill, those same errors and omissions, which would land one in jail for five years, cannot invalidate an election.
What am I trying to say? Well, I have a knack for strong language. But you must pardon me. I know the heartache from the decision of the Supreme Court is real in some sections of the political class. But the Election Laws (Amendment) Bill 2017 currently pending before Parliament is the most stupid and dangerous legislative Bill I have come across in my short legal career.
-
This is uber-nonsense. According to her or him everything is unconstitutional :) can we have constitutional lawyers for christ sake.
Lawyer Muthomi Thiankolu breaks it down...
Here is my take on the Election Laws (Amendment) Bill that is currently before Parliament and why it is STUPID
1. The proposed amendment to the definition of “chairperson” of the IEBC (as read with the proposed amendment to section 6 of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Act) offends the Constitution in two ways. First, the amendment conflates “chairperson” with “member” of the IEBC when article 250 (2) of the Constitution envisions that every constitutional commission shall have a chairperson and members. Secondly, the amendment would effectively/potentially enable an ordinary member of the IEBC to declare presidential election results when article 138 (10) of the constitution reserves this function to the chairperson of the Commission. The question here is whether Parliament can enact a law that permits an ordinary member of a commission to perform a function which the Constitution vests in the chairperson of the Commission.
2. The proposed amendment to section 6 (1) of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Act will remove the requirement for the IEBC chairperson to be a lawyer who is qualified to be a Judge of the Supreme Court. The amendment will also permit persons who are not lawyers to be appointed chairperson of the IEBC. While there is nothing patently wrong about allowing other professionals to head the IEBC, its constitutional and statutory functions naturally point to the need to have a serious legal mind heading the Commission. The amendment also departs from established norm not just in Kenya but in most countries with a common law legal system.
3. The proposed amendment to paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Act will reduce the quorum for transacting business at the IEBC from five to three members. While this may be technically tenable, there is a problem. The total membership of the IEBC is seven. If three constitute a quorum, it means a minority composition of the IEBC could make decisions that bind the majority. In practical terms, with the quorum reduced to three, it means two commissioners could make binding decisions for the IEBC when the law provides for a membership of seven. Matters get even more interesting with the proposed amendment to paragraph 7 of the same schedule, which allows a majority of the members present and voting to make binding decisions for the IEBC. Whether this is unconstitutional, democratic or even logical is debate for another day.
4. The proposed deletion of section 29 of the Elections Act will enable a presidential candidate to be nominated by persons from different political parties. It will also allow independent candidates to be nominated by persons who are members of political parties. This amendment is unconstitutional to the extent that it makes nonsensical the political party system as the mainstream mechanism for canvasing for elective offices. It will also erode the idea of discipline and loyalty to and within political parties.
5. The proposed section 39 (1D) of the Elections Act (and the related amendments) states that in the event of discrepancy between electronically transmitted and manually transmitted results, the manually transmitted results shall prevail. The amendment is misconceived and arguably unconstitutional in three cardinal respects. First, it ignores the historical context for the use of technology in our elections as set out in the Kriegler Report. Remember the late Samuel Kivuitu lamenting that some returning officers had disappeared with the manual results in 2007, including returning officers just a stone’s throw from the national tallying centre? Secondly, the proposed section assumes that the manual election results are incapable of manipulation, contrary to what we painfully learnt in 2007. Put differently, a mischievous presiding or returning officer could electronically transmit the correct election result but manually transmit a fraudulent result, making a complete mockery of this amendment. Thirdly, the amendment runs afoul of the provisions of article 86 (d) of the Constitution, which requires the IEBC to put in place appropriate structures and mechanisms to eliminate electoral malpractice. Indeed, the infusion of technology into our electoral processes was largely informed by this constitutional imperative.
6. The proposed amendment to section 44 (5) of the Elections Act will make it possible to hold sham elections. In particular, it will remove the obligation on the part of the IEBC to (inter alia) test, certify and audit its ICT system. It will also remove the obligation to grant access to the electoral system software source codes. It is not hard to see what inspired this proposed amendment. It stems from dissatisfaction with the orders made by the Supreme Court granting the Petitioner partial access to the IEBC’s electronic systems and platforms. I don’t know why anyone who believes in free, fair and transparent elections would want to make the amendment, but that is a debate for another day.
7. The proposed amendments to section 83 of the Elections Act are unconstitutional in multiple respects. First, they purport to require persons who file an election petition to prove both non-compliance with the principles set out in the Constitution and that such non-compliance affected the results. This offends the provisions of Article 2 (4) of the Constitution. It also offends the provisions of Articles 10, 38, 81 and 86 of the Constitution. In short, it creates room for the holding of sham elections, such as those we have witnessed in Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda etc. Secondly, the amendments purport to excuse all irregularities in election declaration forms as long as they are not calculated to mislead. The thing is, only the respective presiding or returning officers would know whether the irregularities were designed to mislead. The amendments would also permit the situation we saw at the Supreme Court, where one could not tell the official Forms from the unofficial or forged ones.
8. The proposed section 86A of the Elections Act purports to say who can and who cannot run in a fresh election in the event a presidential election is nullified by the Supreme Court. The problem here is that there is no constitutional basis for purporting to restrict who can and who cannot run in the fresh election. Further, the proposed amendment is based on obita dicta from the discredited decision in Presidential Election Petition No. 5 of 2013. The thing is, of the various types of “fresh election” envisioned in article 138 to 140 of the Constitution, only one has a constitutional limitation on who can run and who cannot run. The one addressed by the proposed amendment is not one of them.
9. The proposed section 6A of the Election Offences Act seeks to punish presiding and returning officers who are responsible for errors and omissions in election result declaration forms. The penalty is imprisonment for a term of five years. The ironical bit is that according to the amendment bill, those same errors and omissions, which would land one in jail for five years, cannot invalidate an election.
What am I trying to say? Well, I have a knack for strong language. But you must pardon me. I know the heartache from the decision of the Supreme Court is real in some sections of the political class. But the Election Laws (Amendment) Bill 2017 currently pending before Parliament is the most stupid and dangerous legislative Bill I have come across in my short legal career.
-
RV Pundit- Ruto led Kalenjins to oppose this new Katiba and he wants to eviscerate it by a fake legislative majority which he acquired through rigging and accumulation of tones of stolen public funds. What Ruto does not understand is that democracy can only exist when people agree. He believe he can buy everything including laws that favor his brand of autocracy masquerading as democracy. He is in for a rude awakening.
This is uber-nonsense. According to her or him everything is unconstitutional :) can we have constitutional lawyers for christ sake.
Lawyer Muthomi Thiankolu breaks it down...
Here is my take on the Election Laws (Amendment) Bill that is currently before Parliament and why it is STUPID
1. The proposed amendment to the definition of “chairperson” of the IEBC (as read with the proposed amendment to section 6 of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Act) offends the Constitution in two ways. First, the amendment conflates “chairperson” with “member” of the IEBC when article 250 (2) of the Constitution envisions that every constitutional commission shall have a chairperson and members. Secondly, the amendment would effectively/potentially enable an ordinary member of the IEBC to declare presidential election results when article 138 (10) of the constitution reserves this function to the chairperson of the Commission. The question here is whether Parliament can enact a law that permits an ordinary member of a commission to perform a function which the Constitution vests in the chairperson of the Commission.
2. The proposed amendment to section 6 (1) of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Act will remove the requirement for the IEBC chairperson to be a lawyer who is qualified to be a Judge of the Supreme Court. The amendment will also permit persons who are not lawyers to be appointed chairperson of the IEBC. While there is nothing patently wrong about allowing other professionals to head the IEBC, its constitutional and statutory functions naturally point to the need to have a serious legal mind heading the Commission. The amendment also departs from established norm not just in Kenya but in most countries with a common law legal system.
3. The proposed amendment to paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Act will reduce the quorum for transacting business at the IEBC from five to three members. While this may be technically tenable, there is a problem. The total membership of the IEBC is seven. If three constitute a quorum, it means a minority composition of the IEBC could make decisions that bind the majority. In practical terms, with the quorum reduced to three, it means two commissioners could make binding decisions for the IEBC when the law provides for a membership of seven. Matters get even more interesting with the proposed amendment to paragraph 7 of the same schedule, which allows a majority of the members present and voting to make binding decisions for the IEBC. Whether this is unconstitutional, democratic or even logical is debate for another day.
4. The proposed deletion of section 29 of the Elections Act will enable a presidential candidate to be nominated by persons from different political parties. It will also allow independent candidates to be nominated by persons who are members of political parties. This amendment is unconstitutional to the extent that it makes nonsensical the political party system as the mainstream mechanism for canvasing for elective offices. It will also erode the idea of discipline and loyalty to and within political parties.
5. The proposed section 39 (1D) of the Elections Act (and the related amendments) states that in the event of discrepancy between electronically transmitted and manually transmitted results, the manually transmitted results shall prevail. The amendment is misconceived and arguably unconstitutional in three cardinal respects. First, it ignores the historical context for the use of technology in our elections as set out in the Kriegler Report. Remember the late Samuel Kivuitu lamenting that some returning officers had disappeared with the manual results in 2007, including returning officers just a stone’s throw from the national tallying centre? Secondly, the proposed section assumes that the manual election results are incapable of manipulation, contrary to what we painfully learnt in 2007. Put differently, a mischievous presiding or returning officer could electronically transmit the correct election result but manually transmit a fraudulent result, making a complete mockery of this amendment. Thirdly, the amendment runs afoul of the provisions of article 86 (d) of the Constitution, which requires the IEBC to put in place appropriate structures and mechanisms to eliminate electoral malpractice. Indeed, the infusion of technology into our electoral processes was largely informed by this constitutional imperative.
6. The proposed amendment to section 44 (5) of the Elections Act will make it possible to hold sham elections. In particular, it will remove the obligation on the part of the IEBC to (inter alia) test, certify and audit its ICT system. It will also remove the obligation to grant access to the electoral system software source codes. It is not hard to see what inspired this proposed amendment. It stems from dissatisfaction with the orders made by the Supreme Court granting the Petitioner partial access to the IEBC’s electronic systems and platforms. I don’t know why anyone who believes in free, fair and transparent elections would want to make the amendment, but that is a debate for another day.
7. The proposed amendments to section 83 of the Elections Act are unconstitutional in multiple respects. First, they purport to require persons who file an election petition to prove both non-compliance with the principles set out in the Constitution and that such non-compliance affected the results. This offends the provisions of Article 2 (4) of the Constitution. It also offends the provisions of Articles 10, 38, 81 and 86 of the Constitution. In short, it creates room for the holding of sham elections, such as those we have witnessed in Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda etc. Secondly, the amendments purport to excuse all irregularities in election declaration forms as long as they are not calculated to mislead. The thing is, only the respective presiding or returning officers would know whether the irregularities were designed to mislead. The amendments would also permit the situation we saw at the Supreme Court, where one could not tell the official Forms from the unofficial or forged ones.
8. The proposed section 86A of the Elections Act purports to say who can and who cannot run in a fresh election in the event a presidential election is nullified by the Supreme Court. The problem here is that there is no constitutional basis for purporting to restrict who can and who cannot run in the fresh election. Further, the proposed amendment is based on obita dicta from the discredited decision in Presidential Election Petition No. 5 of 2013. The thing is, of the various types of “fresh election” envisioned in article 138 to 140 of the Constitution, only one has a constitutional limitation on who can run and who cannot run. The one addressed by the proposed amendment is not one of them.
9. The proposed section 6A of the Election Offences Act seeks to punish presiding and returning officers who are responsible for errors and omissions in election result declaration forms. The penalty is imprisonment for a term of five years. The ironical bit is that according to the amendment bill, those same errors and omissions, which would land one in jail for five years, cannot invalidate an election.
What am I trying to say? Well, I have a knack for strong language. But you must pardon me. I know the heartache from the decision of the Supreme Court is real in some sections of the political class. But the Election Laws (Amendment) Bill 2017 currently pending before Parliament is the most stupid and dangerous legislative Bill I have come across in my short legal career.
-
This is uber-nonsense. According to her or him everything is unconstitutional :) can we have constitutional lawyers for christ sake.
Lawyer Muthomi Thiankolu breaks it down...
Here is my take on the Election Laws (Amendment) Bill that is currently before Parliament and why it is STUPID
1. The proposed amendment to the definition of “chairperson” of the IEBC (as read with the proposed amendment to section 6 of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Act) offends the Constitution in two ways. First, the amendment conflates “chairperson” with “member” of the IEBC when article 250 (2) of the Constitution envisions that every constitutional commission shall have a chairperson and members. Secondly, the amendment would effectively/potentially enable an ordinary member of the IEBC to declare presidential election results when article 138 (10) of the constitution reserves this function to the chairperson of the Commission. The question here is whether Parliament can enact a law that permits an ordinary member of a commission to perform a function which the Constitution vests in the chairperson of the Commission.
2. The proposed amendment to section 6 (1) of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Act will remove the requirement for the IEBC chairperson to be a lawyer who is qualified to be a Judge of the Supreme Court. The amendment will also permit persons who are not lawyers to be appointed chairperson of the IEBC. While there is nothing patently wrong about allowing other professionals to head the IEBC, its constitutional and statutory functions naturally point to the need to have a serious legal mind heading the Commission. The amendment also departs from established norm not just in Kenya but in most countries with a common law legal system.
Two points
The negro does not address the real fears of an absentee chairperson. He just criticizes Jubilee’s Asinine attempts at remedying this
With the increasing role of technology in our elections, we should start entertaining techies for the role.
-
Two points
The negro does not address the real fears of an absentee chairperson. He just criticizes Jubilee’s Asinine attempts at remedying this
With the increasing role of technology in our elections, we should start entertaining techies for the role.
Where is he planning to go?
Connie Maina is a copy typist with fake degrees. How "techie" is she?
Stop games. You are to smart for that. Uhuru is not addressing any urgent gaps in the law. He is seeking to take us back to pre-mlolongo because the mother told him how things used to run smoothly under his dad. Inform him we too are determined to make sure he does not take us back.
-
Two points
The negro does not address the real fears of an absentee chairperson. He just criticizes Jubilee’s Asinine attempts at remedying this
With the increasing role of technology in our elections, we should start entertaining techies for the role.
Where is he planning to go?
Connie Maina is a copy typist with fake degrees. How "techie" is she?
Stop games. You are to smart for that. Uhuru is not addressing any urgent gaps in the law. He is seeking to take us back to pre-mlolongo because the mother told him how things used to run smoothly under his dad. Inform him we too are determined to make sure he does not take us back.
Belize
-
Two points
The negro does not address the real fears of an absentee chairperson. He just criticizes Jubilee’s Asinine attempts at remedying this
With the increasing role of technology in our elections, we should start entertaining techies for the role.
Where is he planning to go?
Connie Maina is a copy typist with fake degrees. How "techie" is she?
Stop games. You are to smart for that. Uhuru is not addressing any urgent gaps in the law. He is seeking to take us back to pre-mlolongo because the mother told him how things used to run smoothly under his dad. Inform him we too are determined to make sure he does not take us back.
If ever there was confirmation that Jubilee were planning to despatch somebody, then this is it. Chebukati needs to do an Akombe Broda.
Ni hayo tu.
-
The elephant in the room
Raila v IEBC(2013) lends Babu his last bullet
(https://s1.postimg.org/3r3niai7y7/11731_B99-_F4_AB-4_E0_C-_AB2_C-34_A0_D89088_B2.jpg)
The amendment Bill takes away the gun from him :o
(https://s1.postimg.org/35tzvznjxr/3_B235809-_B415-4_EEB-83_DE-2942_F0_C510_EF.jpg)
Forget about manual transmission or security features.....this is the sole reason NASWA are having nightmares over the Bill; on what basis can this clause be challenged?
Is it unconstitutional? If so,how?
Are the rights of the ‘abandoning’ candidate are infringed?
-
Precisely. That only amendment that take away their "hidden" axe card.
-
That's great. Elections need to be held asap. What good would delaying them do but hurt the economy?
-
The point that eludes you or which you take for granted is that you really believe you can force people into legitimizing your Kalenjin grown version of a democracy by draconian laws, tricks, rigging or brute force. Democracy only works when we all agree and ascend to be governed. You can rule by force as a dictator but not in a democracy. We are not going to be forced or tricked or rigged into anything. Somehow you idiots think that swearing ouru in by some kind of clever trick, ukora, fake majority, etc will somehow resolve your problems and we will lay docile for another five years and then watch like a hypnotized cat watching a ping pong game as power switches from kikuyu to Kalenjin and then back again into perpetuity. NO we have options and we will resist all the way. Kama ni mbaya ni mbaya. In 2007 and 2013 we learned very valuable lessons.
Precisely. That only amendment that take away their "hidden" axe card.
-
The point that eludes you or which you take for granted is that you really believe you can force people into legitimizing your Kalenjin grown version of a democracy by draconian laws, tricks, rigging or brute force. Democracy only works when we all agree and ascend to be governed. You can rule by force as a dictator but not in a democracy. We are not going to be forced or tricked or rigged into anything. Somehow you idiots think that swearing ouru in by some kind of clever trick, ukora, fake majority, etc will somehow resolve your problems and we will lay docile for another five years and then watch like a hypnotized cat watching a ping pong game as power switches from kikuyu to Kalenjin and then back again into perpetuity. NO we have options and we will resist all the way. Kama ni mbaya ni mbaya. In 2007 and 2013 we learned very valuable lessons.
Precisely. That only amendment that take away their "hidden" axe card.
What tricks?
It it absolutely moronic denying candidates a chance at fresh elections following invalidation jus because they never contested just as it is ordering completely fresh elections just because one of the two candidates withdraws.
I strongly doubt High Court will deny Aukot a shot at the ballot,and I doubt once the Bill is assented and contested in High Court, this NASWA trump card will be resuscitated....can’t see any basis
-
It kichwa go slow The family of queen elizabeth has ruled England and at some point the whole world since i think 12th century...buckle up.Elections worldwide is mostly about money.The kenyattas or Mois are not going away soon.And Ruto has been working hard to get there...a son of a peasant.Luo can do this.It will take more than a Raila though