Joho is about to discover that Uhuru can be very vindictive if scorned.

[Omollo]

I have no views on that one, other than to say that some mechanism is required to stop frivolous candidates.    There are all sort of "ballot access" rules all over the place, and some are very similar to the ones that have left you torn between tears and laughter.    As an example, take a look at those in Colorado.[/list]

Let's us say I see it differently.

Note that when I said I would like to see Chapter 6 remain in the constitution I intended to clearly state that that would be subject to it not undermining, curtailing or limiting anybody's democratic rights. If people don't want anything let them get rid of it. I see you trust them to amend the constitution to remove the portions that limit their rights. Wake me up when they do.

Frivolous? Who says?

https://www.omrlp.com/

[Gumzo]

Generally am not happy when I see people talking about what the constitution or the various laws say about the rights of this and that as if it matters.

When will people understand that Kenya is governed by the whims of individuals and not by the rule of law ?

[Omollo]

I'm sure you do.   Nevertheless, there it is.

Those "democratic rights" that you are so concerned about do not fall from Heaven, which is why  "democratic rights" vary from country to country.  In Kenya,  the rights are only and exactly what the Constitution says they are.   And that same constitution states---see Article 19(3)(c), Bill of Rights---that said rights are subject to limitations stated elsewhere in the Constitution.

You should to give up this idea that the rights  are so sacrosanct that they cannot be touched in any way.   Even the most fundamental right---that to life---runs into death sentences for serious criminality

I neither stated nor implied anything of the sort; I simply made an observation of fact. I will, however, note that the Constitution that has you so worked up went through a national referendum, and the citizens had their say. (Whether or not they fully understood is entirely another matter.)
Someone has to say it, and apparently someone has.

Then we will leave it at that. Clearly we cannot agree. I neither believe that because Moi (and before him Kenyatta) limited and in many cases took away individual rights through constitutional amendments etc, that those rights did not exist nor do i believe persons lost the right to those Rights just because the dictators' constitutions said so

There are International Treaties, Conventions and Agreements not least through the UN which by and large underpin those rights. You took a sloppy vector with that belief. You should be every dictator's favorite "visiting Human Rights Expert". I am sure El Bashir would break in to a dance just hearing you say:  In [Sudan] the rights are only and exactly what the Constitution says they are.  He would add NOTHING ELSE!!!

[MOON Ki]

Let's us say I see it differently.

I'm sure you do.   Nevertheless, there it is.

Note that when I said I would like to see Chapter 6 remain in the constitution I intended to clearly state that that would be subject to it not undermining, curtailing or limiting anybody's democratic rights. If people don't want anything let them get rid of it.

Those "democratic rights" that you are so concerned about do not fall from Heaven, which is why  "democratic rights" vary from country to country.  In Kenya,  the rights are only and exactly what the Constitution says they are.   And that same constitution states---see Article 19(3)(c), Bill of Rights---that said rights are subject to limitations stated elsewhere in the Constitution.

You should to give up this idea that the rights  are so sacrosanct that they cannot be touched in any way.   Even the most fundamental right---that to life---runs into death sentences for serious criminality.

I see you trust them to amend the constitution to remove the portions that limit their rights. Wake me up when they do.

I neither stated nor implied anything of the sort; I simply made an observation of fact. I will, however, note that the Constitution that has you so worked up went through a national referendum, and the citizens had their say. (Whether or not they fully understood is entirely another matter.)

Frivolous? Who says?

Someone has to say it, and apparently someone has.

[MOON Ki]

There are International Treaties, Conventions and Agreements not least through the UN which by and large underpin those rights.

Clarifying revision:

First, those  basic human rights, are, as far as I know, largely reflected in the Kenyan constitution, which is good (and unlike, say, Sudan).  But they are not all absolute, in the sense that all come without any qualifications that would permit restrictions.

Second, what you have been writing at length about is on who can or cannot run for office. What the UN Human Rights Charter, for example, says is that:

Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;

(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;

(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.

It doesn't say that there must not be any restrictions; what is says is that there must not be unreasonable restrictions. 

Earlier you wrote that:

Note that when I said I would like to see Chapter 6 remain in the constitution I intended to clearly state that that would be subject to it not undermining, curtailing or limiting anybody's democratic rights. If people don't want anything let them get rid of it.

I'm not even sure I know what parts of Chapter 6 (of itself)  can, in any way, be seen to be "undermining, curtailing or limiting anybody's democratic rights".   Would you care to point them out?    It could well be that you are, as many often do,  confusing Chapter 6 with other, separate laws and rules, that purport to give it effect.

You should be every dictator's favorite "visiting Human Rights Expert". I am sure El Bashir would break in to a dance just hearing you say:  In [Sudan] the rights are only and exactly what the Constitution says they are.  He would add NOTHING ELSE!!!

Not quite.   Please note that my comment on that was on Kenya and its present constitution.    (See the "In Kenya ..." and the references to a part of that Constitution?).   Now, what is significant about that Constitution is that the people of Kenya voted for it, something which is not the case with Sudan's.    And if Kenyans wish to claim more that what is in the current Constitution, they are free to change it.  Until then, they have to make do with what they agreed to, and claiming some unspecified rights from some other place won't do much good.

Also when I write  that

In Kenya,  the rights are only and exactly what the Constitution says they are.

it reflects (a) the legal reality that going into a Kenyan court to claim rights that are not in the Constitution won't fly, because the law doesn't recognize any other rights, and (b) more importantly, my view that the Constitution is already pretty good.    So instead of a generic "International Treaties, Conventions and Agreements not least through the UN", what you might do is state what rights you think are missing, and we can then make progress by discussing those.

[Omollo]

something I wrote is missing from this thread.