Wetangula fate is good as sealed.

[RV Pundit]

• Tweet

What will IEBC kangaroo court do to undo the Supreme Court rulling.
http://www.nation.co.ke/news/IEBC-special-committee-to-decide-Wetangulas-fate/-/1056/2983192/-/x6od1pz/-/index.html


87. Report of court on election offences
(1) An election court shall, at the conclusion of the hearing of a petition, in
addition  to  any  other  orders,  send  to  the  Director  of  Public  Prosecutions,  the
Commission and the relevant Speaker a report in writing indicating whether an
election offence has been committed by any person in connection with the election,
and the names and descriptions of the persons, if any, who have been proved at
the hearing to have been guilty of an election offence.
(2) Before a person, not being a party to an election petition or a candidate on
whose behalf the seat is claimed by an election petition, is reported by an election
court, the elections court shall give that person an opportunity to be heard and to
give and call evidence to show why he should not be reported.
(3) The relevant Speaker shall publish a report made under this section in the
Gazette, and the Commission shall consider the report and delete from the register
of voters, the name of a person who is disqualified from being registered in that
register of voters.

[RV Pundit]

convicted of an election offence during the
preceding five years.

[RV Pundit]

In law, a conviction is the verdict that results when a court of law finds a defendant guilty of a crime.[1] The opposite of a conviction is an acquittal (i.e. "not guilty"). In Scotland and in the Netherlands, there can also be a verdict of "not proven", which counts as an acquittal. There are also cases where the court orders that a defendant not be convicted, despite being found guilty; in the England, Wales and Canada the mechanism for this is a discharge.

Wetangula has been convicted for bribery (an election offence)

He is yet to be punished...DPP has to bring criminal proceedings against him...but as far as IEBC goes..he is off the register.

[RV Pundit]

Bumping this up. I believe If IEBC follow the law, Wetangula will be strike off the register. He is already convicted [found guilty] by highest court of law.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Bumping this up. I believe If IEBC follow the law, Wetangula will be strike off the register. He is already convicted [found guilty] by highest court of law.

It should be a no brainer.  If IEBC were independent, they would have acted on it a long time ago.

[Pajero]

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I think Orengo is being overly technical; something that has made Kenyan laws virtually useless where money is involved.  The question should be what the framers of the constitution really wanted with such a law.  I think in a broad sense they meant that if it is established that he committed the offense, then he shouldn't be on the roll.

[RV Pundit]

Faulty argument. The law doesn't care if one has been found to have committed an offence via a petition -where a fellow raia-present evidence of election offences or via police taking action when they see or have complaint of the same or via DPP doing so. All those are some of processes...that can ultimate lead to a court of law..finding someone guilty of election offence.What matters is conviction by court of law. And that conviction is not equal to being sentence or pleading guilty...the court has convicted Wetangula of an election offence and IEBC should simply strike him off the register.

[Georgesoros]

Agreed. They are not independent.

Bumping this up. I believe If IEBC follow the law, Wetangula will be strike off the register. He is already convicted [found guilty] by highest court of law.

It should be a no brainer.  If IEBC were independent, they would have acted on it a long time ago.

[Georgesoros]

Agreed. They are not independent.
If it were a regular guy his fate could have been sealed after the high court ruling.

Bumping this up. I believe If IEBC follow the law, Wetangula will be strike off the register. He is already convicted [found guilty] by highest court of law.

It should be a no brainer.  If IEBC were independent, they would have acted on it a long time ago.

[RV Pundit]

IEBC reading their verdict. Says their is more administrative.

[RV Pundit]

IEBC says conviction must come from criminal court.

[RV Pundit]

Wetangula..escapes. IEBC says he has not been sentenced or convicted of an election offence. This is a questionable decision.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Ridiculous.  The notion that a court can find that he committed an offense but require another court to make a finding of guilt.  I am not a lawyer, but this would seem like an abuse of the legal process.  Maybe I don't understand judicial economy.

[Pajero]

Why are you surprised,its just like your employer firing you on grounds of fraud,they take you to court and the case is dismissed or you win the case.For them to pay you damages and other benefits,you still have to go to another court and institute  fresh case against your employer.Thai is law for you.

[Kadudu]

Not surprised. Kenya is a banana republic.

[Georgesoros]

I cant  understand the Kenyan system too.

Ridiculous.  The notion that a court can find that he committed an offense but require another court to make a finding of guilt.  I am not a lawyer, but this would seem like an abuse of the legal process.  Maybe I don't understand judicial economy.

[MOON Ki]

Ridiculous.  The notion that a court can find that he committed an offense but require another court to make a finding of guilt.  I am not a lawyer, but this would seem like an abuse of the legal process.  Maybe I don't understand judicial economy.

The IEBC line is actually quite staggering, and one does not need to be a lawyer to see that.  The relevant section of the Elections Act makes it clear, in very plain language, that an adverse finding by an election court would be one of guilt:

87. Report of court on election offences

(1) An election court shall, at the conclusion of the hearing of a petition, in addition to any other orders, send to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Commission and the relevant Speaker a report in writing indicating whether an election offence has been committed by any person in connection with the election, and the names and descriptions of the persons, if any, who have been proved at the hearing to have been guilty of an election offence.

www.parliament.am/library/Electoral%20law/kenya.pdf

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Ridiculous.  The notion that a court can find that he committed an offense but require another court to make a finding of guilt.  I am not a lawyer, but this would seem like an abuse of the legal process.  Maybe I don't understand judicial economy.

The IEBC line is actually quite staggering, and one does not need to be a lawyer to see that.  The relevant section of the Elections Act makes it clear, in very plain language, that an adverse finding by an election court would be one of guilt:

87. Report of court on election offences

(1) An election court shall, at the conclusion of the hearing of a petition, in addition to any other orders, send to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Commission and the relevant Speaker a report in writing indicating whether an election offence has been committed by any person in connection with the election, and the names and descriptions of the persons, if any, who have been proved at the hearing to have been guilty of an election offence.

www.parliament.am/library/Electoral%20law/kenya.pdf

Here is Letangule's take on the same exact section.  The only lack of clarity I see is where the lack of clarity comes in.  Bungoma has probably already exploded in spasms of ecstasy.  It is what they want.

[MOON Ki]

Here is Letangule's take on the same exact section.  The only lack of clarity I see is where the lack of clarity comes in.  Bungoma has probably already exploded in spasms of ecstasy.  It is what they want.

That is an amazing twisting of what the Supreme Court stated, which too is quite clear in plain English.

What the Supreme Court  stated is that Section 87 does not say what the DPP is supposed to do with the report that is sent to him.   Among other things, he could well decide to pursue a criminal trial, from the offence or related offences, which could mean double jeopardy for the perp.  The Supreme Court suggests that clarity is required there.   

Here is the Supreme Court's exact statement:

162.  While the Elections Act creates election offences, and prescribes punishment upon a finding of guilt, it neither delineates the trial forums, nor prescribes the procedure to be followed when the report is handed over to the Director of Public Prosecutions.  An accused person ought not to be subjected to double jeopardy.  Section 87(1) is unclear, insofar as it signals the possibility of a re-trial, within the criminal process.  This ambiguity ought to be clarified through legislation.

In any case, there is the larger point that you mentioned earlier:   Regardless of how one parses the technicalities, the intent of the law is quite clear---to punish those who engage in such malfeasance, and in such a case the intended punishment is removal from the roll of voters.    The IEBC's path is therefore a self-defeating one.