Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Omollo on September 18, 2017, 11:54:32 AM
-
While Uhuru and his Kikuyus shout "No Nusu-Mkate" and stop there, one man has taken it upon himself to not only chorus it but launch a full fledged propaganda campaign against it.
I said that NASA and Jubilee were engaged in proxy talks and was dismissed. I repeat these talks are on-going.
They just got a boost from the US:
1. The State Department statement
2. The US Embassy has been inviting and consulting various groups on the way forward
It is in this light you should see the noise being made by the URP wing of Jubilee. Much as I can't stand Uhuru and his retinue, I spare most of my anger for small time arsonists who aspire to be War-Mongers.
The LOUDEST voices against talks and detente are coming from the OPPORTUNISTS. I shall post some after this.
US wants Uhuru and Raila to hold talks on repeat poll (http://www.nation.co.ke/news/politics/US-pushes-for-Uhuru--Raila-talks-over-election/1064-4100338-qo0pro/index.html)
(http://omollosview.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/US-Wants_Talks.jpg)
-
Americans screwed us over in 2008. Raila should not let up on the reforms push. Iyo tu. No more messed up elections without consequences. Let them jeer as usual but we know Raila always wins in the end and we get more reforms. Another nusu mkate arrangement with daily madharau to RAO is not something I'm interested in seeing.
-
You're angling for NUSU mkate with full-knowledge that you stand no chance in repeat and more repeat elections. And so why would WSR after working his butt to win Jubilee all that support invite you to the dinner table? In short you've no leverage. Uhuru I doubt is in the mood for NUSU-Mkate. What will Raila bring on the table? Where is the leverage?
What is there to talk about? What will NUSU-Mkate ? Did Kibaki appease Raila with NUSU-Mkate - he didn't - Raila kept going on and on for 5yrs.
There are people you can invite at dinner table if you feel magnanimous but not Odinga. Whether inside or outside he still pissing at the tent. So best keep him outside so he can keep himself busy without interfering with gok AGENDA.
-
Tuju is among those who like Ruto are SCARED of detente
(http://omollosview.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/tuju-afraid.jpg)
You're afraid of losing again, Tuju tells Raila Odinga (http://www.nation.co.ke/news/Jubilee-and-Nasa-fight-over-repeat-elections/1056-4100482-gdn3ayz/index.html)
-
What more consequence of messed election do you want - apart annulling them and going re-run? What is there to reform - the new commissioner are not even a year in the office - they started work Feb this year? You got what you wanted - but you don't have the numbers to win it. And that is the elephant in the ouses.
Americans screwed us over in 2008. Raila should not let up on the reforms push. Iyo tu. No more messed up elections without consequences. Let them jeer as usual but we know Raila always wins in the end and we get more reforms. Another nusu mkate arrangement with daily madharau to RAO is not something I'm interested in seeing.
-
What more consequence of messed election do you want - apart annulling them and going re-run? What is there to reform? You got what you wanted - but you don't have the numbers to win it. And that is the elephant in the ouses.
Americans screwed us over in 2008. Raila should not let up on the reforms push. Iyo tu. No more messed up elections without consequences. Let them jeer as usual but we know Raila always wins in the end and we get more reforms. Another nusu mkate arrangement with daily madharau to RAO is not something I'm interested in seeing.
:) And I bet you're serious too with these questions.
-
A former Jubilee pointman in Nyanza has told President Uhuru Kenyatta’s administration to brace for a constitutional crisis after October 17.
Onyango Oloo, who was recently elected the Kisumu County Assembly Speaker, said the reins of leadership will have to be taken over by a caretaker government, led by Chief Justice David Maraga, who would then oversee the repeat presidential elections.
ALSO READ: Raila is planning for either coup or chaos, Ruto says
Area leaders, led by Governor Anyang’ Nyong’o, insisted that there would be no elections if the Opposition’s demands are not met. They said it will not be possible for the country to go into the polls by October 17, the date the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) has set for the fresh elections.
“Our position is there will be no elections without reforms and as a result, there will be a constitutional crisis come October 17. However, a constitutional crisis always has constitutional cures,” Oloo said.
He said the time is too short to conduct free and fair polls and that there will not be adequate preparations.
He also faulted the Church, accusing it of failing to provide direction on the matter and instead taking sides
He said the time is too short to conduct free and fair polls and that there will not be adequate preparations.
He also faulted the Church, accusing it of failing to provide direction on the matter and instead taking sides
https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2001254835/crisis-in-coast-jubilee-team-after-ruto-names-balala-to-lead-uhuru-campaigns
-
I am dead serious. We have gone full circle with these reforms. You see in 2002 - NARC won without even 1/4 of these reforms. Elections is won out there and Raila clearly has no numbers out there. Raila has been unable to win - with all reforms. Admittedly in 2007 Kibaki rigged Raila out and gave him NUSU-Mkate. Martha Karua unilaterally appointed commissioners including kibaki private lawyer and the mess of that election we all know. But 2013, 2017 and now we are going for another re-run - pray tell me what reforms are needed?
:) And I bet you're serious too with these questions.
-
I am dead serious. We have gone full circle with these reforms. You see in 2002 - NARC won without even 1/4 of these reforms. Elections is won out there and Raila clearly has no numbers out there. Raila has been unable to win - with all reforms. Admittedly in 2007 Kibaki rigged Raila out and gave him NUSU-Mkate. Martha Karua unilaterally appointed commissioners including kibaki private lawyer and the mess of that election we all know. But 2013, 2017 and now we are going for another re-run - pray tell me what reforms are needed?
:) And I bet you're serious too with these questions.
I will not bother Pundit. I'm sure you know and have read them all, including the ones by your new friends, the EU. Consequences means individuals pay with their liberty for screwing us over 100 billion worth of money we dont have and in the process risking our stability.
-
:) And I bet you're serious too with these questions.
I was going to say the same then I recalled Marco Polo in the Chinese Emperor's Court saying his quest was to find the CENTRE of THE WORLD and upon being asked by the Emperor if he could recognize it if he found it, he answered yes, to uncontrolled giggles in the court. The External Affairs minister almost chocked on his own tongue!
Kadame the most interesting thing about Marco Polo is that he returned from China to write his account and repeated this exchange WITHOUT fully appreciating orn comprehending why the Court burst in laughter.
Let me continue exploring the Talks Angle.
Simply put and for the record NASA is more opposed to Nusu-Mkate than Ruto and his proteges. NASA wants a level playing ground. That means removing all the in built advantages for Jubilee and disadvantages aimed at NASA. NASA is NOT demanding advantages. It is seeking fairness. Jubilee wants to KEEP its advantages.
-
Kadame
Can you dig out the IPPG pact and find out what effect it had on the 2002 elections. Find out how the destruction of the IPPG pact and its provisions led to 2007. Find out how the key IPPG provisions have been opposed by who and why.
The problem we have is of propagandists trying to re-write our recent history with LIES
-
Those are not reforms. Those are administrative challenges that don't require any legislation at all. Saying use A4 paper instead of A3 or print the names - clearly those are not reforms. They are small tweaks that IEBC can and ought to do without anybody promoting. The rest are trust issues...saying don't give print job to this supplier or fire this xyz staff....what reforms are those?
I'm sure you know and have read them all, including the ones by your new friends, the EU. Consequences means individuals pay with their liberty for screwing us over 100 billion worth of money we dont have and in the process risking our stability.
-
Kibe Mungai writes his Opinion:
Following the decision made on September 1 by majority of the Supreme Court judges to nullify the August 8 presidential election, the IEBC notified the public that a fresh election will be held on October 17.
In a gazette notice, the IEBC also notified the public that there will be no nominations for candidates participating in the fresh election, and relying on the 2013 decision of the Supreme Court in Raila Odinga’s presidential petition, declared the contest will be between Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga.
From both practical and public interest points of view, IEBC’s position presents the ideal scenario -- what Attorney General Githu Muigai calls best political outcome -- except for three complications that may have minor or devastating implications on stability of Kenya’s political order.
Run-off or fresh polls?
The first complication is that in its 2013 judgement, the Supreme Court did not render any decision on the basis of which IEBC can rule out fresh nominations and confine the contest to Uhuru and Raila. In my view, what the IEBC refers to a “decision” is at best a legislative proposal by the Supreme Court. I will shortly explain this minor complication.
The second complication is fairly serious because it could easily lead to nullification of the fresh presidential elections. The explanation may sound complicated but it is fairly simple when you grasp the essence of the fresh election pursuant to Article 140 of the Constitution.
The procedure for presidential election is set out in Article 138, and for purposes of this article, two things should be noted.
First, nomination of candidates is a precondition for the election of president pursuant to Article 136 or in the event that such election is cancelled in the circumstances set out in Article 138(8).
Secondly, in the event of a fresh election as contemplated in Article 138(5), no fresh nominations are necessary because such fresh election is actually a run-off and merely a continuation of the initial election that has not produced a winner. This run-off must be held within 30 days of the previous election.
It cannot be gainsaid that the fresh presidential election occasioned by nullification of Uhuru’s election will not be a run-off which is why the Constitution provides for 60 days similar to a new election following cancellation of presidential election under Article 138(8).
In its 2013 judgement, the Supreme Court stated that a fresh election triggered by the invalidation of the declared president-elect does not require fresh nomination of candidates because “such a fresh election is built on the foundations of the invalidated election”. It boggles the mind that the Supreme Court could utter such statement.
This reasoning is untenable and contradictory. In plain English, the word nullify means two things. First to make a legal agreement or decision have no legal force. Secondly, to cause something to have no value or effect.
The immediate effect of the decision of the Supreme Court majority to invalidate Uhuru’s election is that the certificate of president-elect issued to him by Wafula Chebukati on August 11 was rendered a nullity. The original basis for the said certificate of president-elect is that Uhuru had on May 29, 2017 been issued with a certificate of nomination as the Jubilee Party presidential candidate for the August 8 election.
Baldly stated, the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the 2013 judgement is that after an election of President is invalidated, the certificate of President-elect is nullified but the certificate of nomination remains valid and somehow survives as a foundation for the fresh election.
This strange reasoning begs the questions: Why is this not the case in parliamentary and other elections? If the nomination certificates issued to Uhuru and Raila for the August 8 election are still valid, why is this not the case for Ekuru Aukot and the other fringe candidates?
How will IEBC justify application of some sub-clauses of Article 138 and not others, particularly regarding nominations? Most importantly, if Uhuru and Raila were issued with nomination certificates for the presidential election held August 8, does each of them truly believe such certificate is valid for the fresh election on October 17?
The third complication relates to the legal consequences of Raila’s threat to either pull-out or impede the holding of the fresh election ordered by the Supreme Court unless his impossible sounding conditions are met by IEBC.
On the face of it, if the order for fresh elections is interpreted to mean an election between Uhuru and Raila – as the Supreme Court opinion of 2013 suggests – then there is great trouble for Kenya ahead if Raila pulls out of the October contest.
Constitutional crisis
Without a doubt, such a scenario will plunge Kenya into a constitutional crisis which would have to be cured by either a NASA-instigated civilian coup (read nusu mkate care-taker government) or a Jubilee-led palace coup in which Jubilee Party damns the Constitution and claims Kenyans had already given Uhuru a new mandate in August. This kind of uncertainty is preventable and this is how.
There are only three circumstances under which the Supreme Court can make binding decisions. First, the Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes relating to elections to the office of the President. Secondly, it has appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine select appeals from the Court of Appeal.
Thirdly, under Article 163(6) the Supreme Court may give advisory opinions. The purported decision of 2013 that IEBC is citing in its gazette notice for the October 17 fresh presidential elections is not a decision made under any of the three circumstances above. Logically one may ask: what was it then?
Like in 2017, the AG was admitted as amicus curiae (friend of court) during the 2013 petition. Based on an apparent apprehension that there was a lacuna in law in the event that Uhuru’s election was invalidated, the AG invited the court to answer the following question: “Does the fresh election anticipated by Article 140(3) mean an entirely new presidential election (including the nomination process), or does it mean a similar election as that anticipated under Article 138(5) and (7) – with the same candidates as in the earlier poll?”
Line of relief
The Supreme Court understood the AG as inviting it “to give directions on a line of relief declared by the Constitution depending on merits”. Upon accepting the AG’s invitation, the court gave its directions and answers to his questions. In my view, the directions and answers given in 2013 do not amount to a decision of the Supreme Court under Article 163 as argued above.
For avoidance of doubt, Article 138 sets out the procedure of presidential election whether such election is triggered by the expiry of the President’s term under Article 136(2)(a), impeachment of the President under Article 146 or invalidation of a presidential election under Article 140.
The way I see it is that the directions and answers in the 2013 judgement were based on the understandable inclinations of the AG and the Supreme Court to avoid the procedure set out in Article 138. In 2013 the merits of those answers and directions were not put to test as Raila’s petition did not succeed.
In 2017, I am afraid there would be dire consequences for Kenya if the IEBC tries to avoid Article 138 whilst Raila is threatening to pull-out of the fresh elections. The reason is simple: If the procedure under Article 138 is followed and nominations conducted, it will not matter whether or not Raila pulls out of the race because IEBC will simply declare the nominated candidate as elected.
Likewise, if the procedure under Article 138 is not followed, then the foreseeable political future of Kenya rests in the hands of Raila as there would be no constitutional basis for Kenya to have a legitimate President without going through the rigours of an election.
Moi Family Rag (https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2001254835/crisis-in-coast-jubilee-team-after-ruto-names-balala-to-lead-uhuru-campaigns)
-
This is a joke? You can ask and you will be educated. Make no assumptions based on limited knowledge. The world moved from the level of generalities and trust to legal accountability and technical provisions to prevent and end illegalities.
It is a pity this is coming from a self styled "ICT Expert"
Those are not reforms. Those are administrative challenges that don't require any legislation at all. Saying use A4 paper instead of A3 or print the names - clearly those are not reforms. They are small tweaks that IEBC can and ought to do without anybody prompting.
The rest are trust issues...saying don't give print job to this supplier or fire this xyz staff....what reforms are those?
-
There is no cure for your trust issues with IEBC. Chebukati and team are 8 months in the job and you don't trust they can independently ran the commission, hire & fire staff, engage suppliers and contractors - without your promoting & directions. What purpose of having IEBC as independent commission with commissioners enjoying security of tenure?. What reforms are those - or you want to IEBC to be disbanded and NASA appointed to conduct elections?
My view - we don't need any electoral reforms - IEBC just need to get it's act together by looking at their internal processes, improve on them, find gaps & fill those gaps - otherwise we are already conducting free, fair, credible and verifiable elections - just that some losers cannot face the reality of democracy.
This is a joke? You can ask and you will be educated. Make no assumptions based on limited knowledge. The world moved from the level of generalities and trust to legal accountability and technical provisions to prevent and end illegalities.
It is a pity this is coming from a self styled "ICT Expert"
-
Nasa should not be talking to these electoral thieves.
-
Agree with Kibe on most of his opinion. Like I said before, that 2013 SCOK was either filled with daftest bunch ever or it was TOLD to say that by Githu since he is the one who pretended to be confused about why the constitition uses the same term for run-off and invalidation and needed "clarification". It is Githu who crafted this non-existent link between the two sections and then fed it to the court.
Their understanding of fresh elections in the event of invalidation makes ZERO sense. There is only one question really: Is it merely a repeat of the last elections, meaning we go back to how things were on 7/8 or all the way to nominations? This is what they should have answered. Kibe makes a good argument for nominations one.
Instead these brilliant six started pulling rabbits from magic hats in the form of "concessions" and "party with the second most votes"...Where they got this, from the Holy Spirit or wherever, only they can tell us. I think they got it from Githu Muigai.
Like Kibe says it BOGGLES the mind how something like this could have come from the highest court of the land. We need to fry Ahmednassir and his dumb ivory tower arrogance that gave us such a bunch not for the High Court or even Court of Appeal but freakin Supreme Court of Kenya. SMH.Kibe Mungai writes his Opinion:
Following the decision made on September 1 by majority of the Supreme Court judges to nullify the August 8 presidential election, the IEBC notified the public that a fresh election will be held on October 17.
In a gazette notice, the IEBC also notified the public that there will be no nominations for candidates participating in the fresh election, and relying on the 2013 decision of the Supreme Court in Raila Odinga’s presidential petition, declared the contest will be between Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga.
From both practical and public interest points of view, IEBC’s position presents the ideal scenario -- what Attorney General Githu Muigai calls best political outcome -- except for three complications that may have minor or devastating implications on stability of Kenya’s political order.
Run-off or fresh polls?
The first complication is that in its 2013 judgement, the Supreme Court did not render any decision on the basis of which IEBC can rule out fresh nominations and confine the contest to Uhuru and Raila. In my view, what the IEBC refers to a “decision” is at best a legislative proposal by the Supreme Court. I will shortly explain this minor complication.
The second complication is fairly serious because it could easily lead to nullification of the fresh presidential elections. The explanation may sound complicated but it is fairly simple when you grasp the essence of the fresh election pursuant to Article 140 of the Constitution.
The procedure for presidential election is set out in Article 138, and for purposes of this article, two things should be noted.
First, nomination of candidates is a precondition for the election of president pursuant to Article 136 or in the event that such election is cancelled in the circumstances set out in Article 138(8).
Secondly, in the event of a fresh election as contemplated in Article 138(5), no fresh nominations are necessary because such fresh election is actually a run-off and merely a continuation of the initial election that has not produced a winner. This run-off must be held within 30 days of the previous election.
It cannot be gainsaid that the fresh presidential election occasioned by nullification of Uhuru’s election will not be a run-off which is why the Constitution provides for 60 days similar to a new election following cancellation of presidential election under Article 138(8).
In its 2013 judgement, the Supreme Court stated that a fresh election triggered by the invalidation of the declared president-elect does not require fresh nomination of candidates because “such a fresh election is built on the foundations of the invalidated election”. It boggles the mind that the Supreme Court could utter such statement.
This reasoning is untenable and contradictory. In plain English, the word nullify means two things. First to make a legal agreement or decision have no legal force. Secondly, to cause something to have no value or effect.
The immediate effect of the decision of the Supreme Court majority to invalidate Uhuru’s election is that the certificate of president-elect issued to him by Wafula Chebukati on August 11 was rendered a nullity. The original basis for the said certificate of president-elect is that Uhuru had on May 29, 2017 been issued with a certificate of nomination as the Jubilee Party presidential candidate for the August 8 election.
Baldly stated, the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the 2013 judgement is that after an election of President is invalidated, the certificate of President-elect is nullified but the certificate of nomination remains valid and somehow survives as a foundation for the fresh election.
This strange reasoning begs the questions: Why is this not the case in parliamentary and other elections? If the nomination certificates issued to Uhuru and Raila for the August 8 election are still valid, why is this not the case for Ekuru Aukot and the other fringe candidates?
How will IEBC justify application of some sub-clauses of Article 138 and not others, particularly regarding nominations? Most importantly, if Uhuru and Raila were issued with nomination certificates for the presidential election held August 8, does each of them truly believe such certificate is valid for the fresh election on October 17?
The third complication relates to the legal consequences of Raila’s threat to either pull-out or impede the holding of the fresh election ordered by the Supreme Court unless his impossible sounding conditions are met by IEBC.
On the face of it, if the order for fresh elections is interpreted to mean an election between Uhuru and Raila – as the Supreme Court opinion of 2013 suggests – then there is great trouble for Kenya ahead if Raila pulls out of the October contest.
Constitutional crisis
Without a doubt, such a scenario will plunge Kenya into a constitutional crisis which would have to be cured by either a NASA-instigated civilian coup (read nusu mkate care-taker government) or a Jubilee-led palace coup in which Jubilee Party damns the Constitution and claims Kenyans had already given Uhuru a new mandate in August. This kind of uncertainty is preventable and this is how.
There are only three circumstances under which the Supreme Court can make binding decisions. First, the Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes relating to elections to the office of the President. Secondly, it has appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine select appeals from the Court of Appeal.
Thirdly, under Article 163(6) the Supreme Court may give advisory opinions. The purported decision of 2013 that IEBC is citing in its gazette notice for the October 17 fresh presidential elections is not a decision made under any of the three circumstances above. Logically one may ask: what was it then?
Like in 2017, the AG was admitted as amicus curiae (friend of court) during the 2013 petition. Based on an apparent apprehension that there was a lacuna in law in the event that Uhuru’s election was invalidated, the AG invited the court to answer the following question: “Does the fresh election anticipated by Article 140(3) mean an entirely new presidential election (including the nomination process), or does it mean a similar election as that anticipated under Article 138(5) and (7) – with the same candidates as in the earlier poll?”
Line of relief
The Supreme Court understood the AG as inviting it “to give directions on a line of relief declared by the Constitution depending on merits”. Upon accepting the AG’s invitation, the court gave its directions and answers to his questions. In my view, the directions and answers given in 2013 do not amount to a decision of the Supreme Court under Article 163 as argued above.
For avoidance of doubt, Article 138 sets out the procedure of presidential election whether such election is triggered by the expiry of the President’s term under Article 136(2)(a), impeachment of the President under Article 146 or invalidation of a presidential election under Article 140.
The way I see it is that the directions and answers in the 2013 judgement were based on the understandable inclinations of the AG and the Supreme Court to avoid the procedure set out in Article 138. In 2013 the merits of those answers and directions were not put to test as Raila’s petition did not succeed.
In 2017, I am afraid there would be dire consequences for Kenya if the IEBC tries to avoid Article 138 whilst Raila is threatening to pull-out of the fresh elections. The reason is simple: If the procedure under Article 138 is followed and nominations conducted, it will not matter whether or not Raila pulls out of the race because IEBC will simply declare the nominated candidate as elected.
Likewise, if the procedure under Article 138 is not followed, then the foreseeable political future of Kenya rests in the hands of Raila as there would be no constitutional basis for Kenya to have a legitimate President without going through the rigours of an election.
Moi Family Rag (https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2001254835/crisis-in-coast-jubilee-team-after-ruto-names-balala-to-lead-uhuru-campaigns)
-
Nasa should not be talking to these electoral thieves.
100%!!!
-
Like I said I would be willing to educate you for free.
Let me take you back to 1796. Elections in a Rotten Borough. The Aristocrat Land Owner typically decided who "won" and apportioned the number of votes cast. In comes paper and pen to cure the problem of trust
In Kenya you go to 1969 elections. Every candidate had his own ballot box. many ended up in the rivers. Cure: common ballot boxes
The philippines had the the problem of individuals coming in to vote for mayor or whoever the mafia wanted while ignoring the other candidates. To maximize their chances, some candidates would bribe election officials to use the "unused" ballots to stuff the boxes in their favor. Serious corruption. Cure: Single BALLOT PAPER for ALL 12 elections:
The game Ruto and Jubilee is playing is having taken control of the IEBC, they are loudest in proclaiming its independence. Yet when the Supreme Court displayed REAL independence, they were the first to point out that "there is a problem at the SCOK": Meaning we thought we control it too. They made a promise to FIX it after hopefully rigging themselves back to power.
Sorry Pundit. You can't sell that used condom to NASA.
There is no cure for your trust issues with IEBC. Chebukati and team are 8 months in the job and you don't trust they can independently ran the commission, hire & fire staff, engage suppliers and contractors - with your promoting & directions. What purpose of having IEBC as independent commission with commissioners enjoying security of tenure?. What reforms are those - or you want to IEBC to be disbanded and NASA appointed to conduct elections?
This is a joke? You can ask and you will be educated. Make no assumptions based on limited knowledge. The world moved from the level of generalities and trust to legal accountability and technical provisions to prevent and end illegalities.
It is a pity this is coming from a self styled "ICT Expert"
-
It is Njoki who "wrote" it for the others. However in reality, the judgment was written by Githu Muigai with help from Ahmednassir and Ngatia. They then handed it to Njoki to read through and pass it on to the others.
Some signed without ever reading it.
BTW that is what usually happens at these courts. One Judge writes the whole thing and the others sign.
That is why in the 90s, defence advocates were penning judgments and then handing over to magistrates and judges to sign.
Agree with Kibe on most of his opinion. Like I said before, that 2013 SCOK was either filled with daftest bunch ever or it was TOLD to say that by Githu since he is the one who pretended to be confused about why the constitition uses the same term for run-off and invalidation and needed "clarification". It is Githu who crafted this non-existent link between the two sections and then fed it to the court
-
There is no cure for your trust issues with IEBC. Chebukati and team are 8 months in the job and you don't trust they can independently ran the commission, hire & fire staff, engage suppliers and contractors - without your promoting & directions. What purpose of having IEBC as independent commission with commissioners enjoying security of tenure?. What reforms are those - or you want to IEBC to be disbanded and NASA appointed to conduct elections?
My view - we don't need any electoral reforms - IEBC just need to get it's act together by looking at their internal processes, improve on them, find gaps & fill those gaps - otherwise we are already conducting free, fair, credible and verifiable elections - just that some losers cannot face the reality of democracy.
This is a joke? You can ask and you will be educated. Make no assumptions based on limited knowledge. The world moved from the level of generalities and trust to legal accountability and technical provisions to prevent and end illegalities.
It is a pity this is coming from a self styled "ICT Expert"
Chebukati himself has trust issues with the secretariate he twice disowned. Asking those in a weak standing to trust it in this form is simply arrogant. You guys are getting ready to hunt down judges whose wrongs you cant even invent properly and you want NASA to trust a team that's been caught red-handed misbehaving.
-
Kadame
Have you figured out Kibe he says at the end of his piece
-
Kadame
Have you figured out Kibe he says at the end of his piece
Yes I noticed. They are now interested in a proper interpretation because their needs have shifted from 2013. :D Still, at least it shows that what was happening in 2013 was a big joke and likely the SCOK taking instructions from Githu based on what Jubilee thought was good at the time.
-
Chebukati and fellow commissioners - who were appointed with team from Raila in the interview panel - should sit down and do what they need to do.The SCOK judges made a huge mistakes and I'd be interested to know what motivated them - did they follow hook, line and sinker to NASA lies or there is more than meet the eye here.
Chebukati himself has trust issues with the secretariate he twice disowned. Asking those in a weak standing to trust it in this form is simply arrogant. You guys are getting ready to hunt down judges whose wrongs you cant even invent properly and you want NASA to trust a team that's been caught red-handed misbehaving.
-
Pundit
How do you classify these problems?
1. IEBC staff in the field (Embu) taking orders from County Commissioners
2. County Commissioners issuing orders to police to kick out NASA Agents
3. County Commissioners compromising NASA Agents after overbearing threats and intimidation
4. IEBC Staff (Makueni) unilaterally deciding NOT to transmit results "since it is late at night" when it was 7:30PM in Makueni
5. IEBC staff destroying the original Form 34 A and 34B then making their own with fake results
6. IEBC allowing more than 700 people to "vote" in a polling station (Nairobi various places
Raila holding a Presser will continue later
-
Those who engaged in criminal activities should be charged.Cleary Uhuru got few votes in makueni.