Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: RV Pundit on January 02, 2015, 01:25:32 PM
-
http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/High-court-suspends-parts-of-Kenya-security-laws/-/539546/2576262/-/kjdur2z/-/index.html
-
At least The Star has tried to educate readers about the law. Both Jubilee Papers - Nation and Standard - have weaved it in to confusion.
In fact as a Write, the Nation is not yet updated to accept the news. GEMA boys are MIA.
THE High court has temporarily suspended eight clauses in the security law amendment bill 2014 that was signed and passed into law by president Uhuru Kenyatta in December 2014.
Speaking during the ruling on Friday, Justice George Odunga said the security law cannot be made in a way that limits the freedom of Kenyans.
"We cannot limit the freedoms and inalienable rights in the pretext of fighting terrorism, that must be done in the confines of the law," Odunga said.
He suspended clause 12,16,26,29,46,56,58 and 64.
Odunga referred the case to Chief justice Willy Mutunga who is expected to form a three-judge-bench that will further deliberate on the case petitioned by Coalition of Reforms and Democracy.
The government has however applied for a thirty day stay of the conservatory orders directed by Justice Odunga while Kenya National commission on Human rights objects to partial issuance of the orders.
Part of clause 12 states that:
12. The Penal Code is amended by inserting the following new section immediately after section 66?
Prohibited publications and broadcasts.
66A. (1) A person who publishes, broadcasts or causes to be published or distributed, through print, digital or electronic means, insulting, threatening, or inciting material or images of dead or injured persons which are likely to cause fear and alarm to the general public or disturb public peace commits an offence and is liable, upon conviction, to a fine not exceeding five million shillings or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or both.
(2) A person who publishes or broadcasts any information which undermines investigations or security operations by the National Police Service or the Kenya Defence Forces commits an offence and is liable, upon conviction, to a fine not exceeding five million shillings or a imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both.
Clause 64 also states that;
The Prevention of Terrorism Act is amended by inserting the following new sections immediately after section 30—
The Security Laws (Amendment) Act, 2014
Publication of offending material.
30A. (1) A person who publishes or utters a statement that is likely to be understood as directly or indirectly encouraging or inducing another person to commit or prepare to commit an act of terrorism commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. (2) For purposes of subsection (1), a statement is likely to be understood as directly or indirectly encouraging or inducing another person to commit or prepare to commit an act of terrorism if— (a) the circumstances and manner of the publications are such that it can reasonably be inferred that it was so intended; or (b) the intention is apparent from the contents of the statement. (3) For purposes of this section, it is irrelevant whether any person is in fact encouraged or induced to commit or prepare to commit an act of terrorism.
This comes after Cord filed suit seeking conservatory (extremely urgent) orders to stop implementation of the Security Laws (Amendment) Act.
Cord wanted the High Court to determine whether the Act violated the Bill of Rights and whether its passage violated National Assembly Standing Orders.
- See more at: http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/high-court-suspends-eight-clauses-security-law-refers-case-supreme-court#sthash.tKqRYjxY.dpuf
-
Indeed seem the star quality of journalism has improved so much. Nation has gone down the drains.
I do not see these dracocian kanu era laws standing.
-
If it ends up in the Supreme Court some of them will stand. Those judges are all compromised. Whatever Njoki Ndung'u organized seems to have worked. The guys who could not afford a second pair of pants now are so wealthy beyond belief. at least three of them may die of over-weight.
Indeed seem the star quality of journalism has improved so much. Nation has gone down the drains.
I do not see these dracocian kanu era laws standing.
-
Nation is dead. Remember the illness that killed The Weekly Review? That illness has infected The Nation. Ng'weno rose on being able to state certain things with some degree of independence. The he slowly got compromised and imagined that if he shifted course, his readership will follow. He looked back and he was alone. I understand the last three issues were returned to the offices without a single copy having been bought on the streets.
-
Yes Nation has slowly become like our church; as tribal as everyone else; and therefore nobody is interested to read a paper that stand for no higher ideals than any random idiot on street.
Nation is dead. Remember the illness that killed The Weekly Review? That illness has infected The Nation. Ng'weno rose on being able to state certain things with some degree of independence. The he slowly got compromised and imagined that if he shifted course, his readership will follow. He looked back and he was alone. I understand the last three issues were returned to the offices without a single copy having been bought on the streets.
-
It would appear that Odunga thinks it's okay to remand a suspect for upto 360 days without bringing him to trial.
Why he feels he needs Mutungaru's input to make a determination is completely lost to me.
-
I am looking for the ruling. It takes at least three days to get it online.
-
It would appear that Odunga thinks it's okay to remand a suspect for upto 360 days without bringing him to trial.
Why he feels he needs Mutungaru's input to make a determination is completely lost to me.
First part: I didn't think it was necessary for him to act all parts that may be problematic; that would be difficult to justify. What he had to do was act on certain parts that require urgent action.
Second part: His primary task was whether to (a) put certain parts of the law into "abeyance" until the matter has been fully heard and (b) decide whether the application had enough substance to go forward. He did both.
On the "going forward", the relevant law says that such a matter of constitutional interpretation is to be heard by an even number (at least three) judges appointed by the CJ.
-
I think he did a pretty good job in the discussion to explain why he acted on certain parts and left the rest for the later. His standard was those section that caused , "danger to life and limb and/or infringment on bill of rights".