Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: vooke on September 19, 2017, 06:34:18 AM
-
There is a popular view that the Judges should declare their interests if any and possible conflict. The Judges should write their individual decisions. Indeed, that is the practice in the Commonwealth. It was the practice adopted by the Court of Appeal until recently, when it appears to have been abandoned. The only way to ensure judicial fidelity and interrogate judges’ Jurisprudential Quotient, is to test their individual decision-making abilities. They should not hide in the cocoon of collective success or failure. This conduct amounts to judicial laziness.
https://nasacoalition.com/2017/08/25/kenya-trial-truth-justice-supreme-court/
Speaking during the inauguration of Vihiga Governor Wilberforce Ottichilo at Kidundu grounds, Mudavadi demanded that each of the seven judges read their individual decisions.
He stated that when delivering their judgment regarding the petition, they should not read a collective ruling but each judge must give their own pronouncement regarding the matter.
“We don’t want justice to be frustrated. Let them read their verdicts individually and tell Kenyans their stand in broad daylight,” he demanded.
https://www.kenyans.co.ke/news/21947-musalia-mudavadi-asks-supreme-court-judges-read-individual-ruling-presidential-petition
-
I don't see them doing that - I think they will all hide under one judgement.
-
I don't see them doing that - I think they will all hide under one judgement.
Me too. I also think it is not in NASWA's interest that the individual decisions be read out; it makes criticizing the decision much easy and may seriously weaken their case against IEBC
-
They have to bolster each other arguments considering in my view this is weak case that has to be propped. Njoki and Ojwang did separate dissenting summaries- so you can expect they'll do the same.
Me too. I also think it is not in NASWA's interest that the individual decisions be read out; it makes criticizing the decision much easy and may seriously weaken their case against IEBC
-
They have to bolster each other arguments considering in my view this is weak case that has to be propped. Njoki and Ojwang did separate dissenting summaries- so you can expect they'll do the same.
Me too. I also think it is not in NASWA's interest that the individual decisions be read out; it makes criticizing the decision much easy and may seriously weaken their case against IEBC
Weak case? Jesus...
-
Usually it's one full ruling. And then separate concurring or dissenting rulings. ICC style.
-
Usually it's one full ruling. And then separate concurring or dissenting rulings. ICC style.
What was NASWA demanding? 'concurring rulings'?
-
Usually it's one full ruling. And then separate concurring or dissenting rulings. ICC style.
What was NASWA demanding? 'concurring rulings'?
I have no idea.
-
Usually it's one full ruling. And then separate concurring or dissenting rulings. ICC style.
What was NASWA demanding? 'concurring rulings'?
I have no idea.
Asante.
I note calls for individual ruling died out almost immediately after the determination in their favour. Perhaps Jubilee should pick it up from there
-
Usually it's one full ruling. And then separate concurring or dissenting rulings. ICC style.
What was NASWA demanding? 'concurring rulings'?
I have no idea.
Asante.
I note calls for individual ruling died out almost immediately after the determination in their favour. Perhaps Jubilee should pick it up from there
Whatever one calls it, they are either concurring or dissenting to the main ruling. Separate consenting opinions are usually when the judge feels they need to emphasize some principle or aspect of the main ruling. Chile Eboe-Osuji almost always has them.
-
Usually it's one full ruling. And then separate concurring or dissenting rulings. ICC style.
What was NASWA demanding? 'concurring rulings'?
I have no idea.
Asante.
I note calls for individual ruling died out almost immediately after the determination in their favour. Perhaps Jubilee should pick it up from there
Whatever one calls it, they are either concurring or dissenting to the main ruling. Separate consenting opinions are usually when the judge feels they need to emphasize some principle or aspect of the main ruling. Chile Eboe-Osuji almost always has them.
NASWA appears to have been demanding for no collective ruling but rather from the summary each judge renders their detailed opinion either for or against.
-
Usually it's one full ruling. And then separate concurring or dissenting rulings. ICC style.
Many courts operate that way (ICJ, European Court of Human Rights, SCOTUS), which is the best way IMO, and a middle way between two opposites: one is many individual pieces representing the majority and the other is where you have one piece remaining completely opaque about individual judges' thoughts (like the European Court of Justice). There are pros and cons to all but this one where you have one main judgment with separate opinions for those who wish to write them provides both clarity and some ability to "interrogate" individuals and study their judicial philosophy. Multiple ones without one of them being the "official" one would definitely lead to confusion where there are contradictions on finer but crucial points between judges who otherwise agree in large part.
Even if the decision is split between the judges, so some write on some issues and others different ones, as long as they do so on behalf of the majority and this is clear, it should be fine. Maybe NASA thought that asking for individual pieces would lead to each judge being more "responsible" but I think its always better to have a major decision at least on each of the points of dispute and then where judges feel they agree with the conclusion but not some aspect of the reasoning or they wish to stress something further as you put it, or just dissent completely, they can do so in separate opinions. But lower courts will be better served with an authoritative reasoning that represents the majority decision on each point of dispute so that they will know what the law is. In any case, the court is free to develop its own tradition in this regard like other top courts, parties can't force them.
-
They have to bolster each other arguments considering in my view this is weak case that has to be propped. Njoki and Ojwang did separate dissenting summaries- so you can expect they'll do the same.
Me too. I also think it is not in NASWA's interest that the individual decisions be read out; it makes criticizing the decision much easy and may seriously weaken their case against IEBC
Lol. Pundit, You genuinely believe that these experienced judges are somewhere in a corner struggling to write a judgment. What do you think is giving them trouble? The legal provisions ama nini? C'mon. Have you seen that ridiculous interpretation the last SCOK gave "fresh elections" where they didn't even bother relying on any law? Whatever this judgment says, you can bet it'll be TONNES better than last time.
-
Usually it's one full ruling. And then separate concurring or dissenting rulings. ICC style.
Many courts operate that way (ICJ, European Court of Human Rights, SCOTUS), which is the best way IMO, and a middle way between two opposites: one is many individual pieces representing the majority and the other is where you have one piece remaining completely opaque about individual judges' thoughts (like the European Court of Justice). There are pros and cons to all but this one where you have one main judgment with separate opinions for those who wish to write them provides both clarity and some ability to "interrogate" individuals and study their judicial philosophy. Multiple ones without one of them being the "official" one would definitely lead to confusion where there are contradictions on finer but crucial points between judges who otherwise agree in large part.
Even if the decision is split between the judges, so some write on some issues and others different ones, as long as they do so on behalf of the majority and this is clear, it should be fine. Maybe NASA thought that asking for individual pieces would lead to each judge being more "responsible" but I think its always better to have a major decision at least on each of the points of dispute and then where judges feel they agree with the conclusion but not some aspect of the reasoning or they wish to stress something further as you put it, or just dissent completely, they can do so in separate opinions. But lower courts will be better served with an authoritative reasoning that represents the majority decision on each point of dispute so that they will know what the law is. In any case, the court is free to develop its own tradition in this regard like other top courts, parties can't force them.
Asante kadame,
It's murkier than I thought but clearer with your input.
Was you aware of NASWA's demands to this effect before the determination?
-
No I wasnt. You told me juzi in another thread or was it jana?
-
No I wasnt. You told me juzi in another thread or was it jana?
Ok.
Asante sana