Njoki Ndungu LIED on the Bench

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Looks like if Charles Kanjama has his way, he could soon be having a chat with her.

On June 7 last year, the High Court ruled that Justice Ndung'u should be investigated over gross misconduct.

https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2001255190/jsc-to-cross-examine-supreme-court-judge-njoki-ndung-u-on-petitions

[Kadame10]

And where did she adduce evidence. All FORM 34As and Form 34BS were handed over to Njoki as per the law. They are part of evidence in the case by default. I don't know why you think she need leave to introduce form 34A or 34Bs which by law were taken to her - 4 days after Raila made a petition.

The way it works:
Petitioner makes an allegation (through and affidavit)
Respondent answers it (ditto)
Petitioner gets a chance to rebutt
Matter comes for oral canvassing and both sides get to respond to issues arrising

A judge cannot adduce evidence. Even where she has own knowledge of the matter. In that event she becomes a witness.

How did she check the barcodes?

[RV Pundit]

It like a mad house. It hard trying to have sane conversation.

[RV Pundit]

Why is that pertinent. Maybe Jubilee lawyers helped her - just like Mwilu was assisted by Orengo. We just need you to get us evidence and petition for that.

How did she check the barcodes?

[Kadame10]

Why is that pertinent. Maybe Jubilee lawyers helped her - just like Mwilu was assisted by Orengo. We just need you to get us evidence and petition for that.

How did she check the barcodes?

It's pertinent because that is extra evidence she is adducing, all produced in the secrecy of her back office.

[RV Pundit]

My position is that it's not humanly impossible to do what she did within the time-frame. And it's not important to know how she did this. I am laser-focused on why her output and scok registar output differs. We have a judge saying the forms are kosher - and Registar saying the same forms are not. That is where the problem is....it calls for a review and maybe yet another scrutiny and verification...just for posterity sake and to determine if someone might have manipulated the court process. It could either mean Njoki is  liar - and therefore JSC out to remove her..or Nyakai & the team did their own stuff.

You need to pick a position: she did it herself or she let other people do it in secret while castigating her colleagues for doing it in public. I know clerks help with research. Personally, I've never known that they are allowed to examine evidence for themselves and make a finding which is then trusted by the judge as correct.

[RV Pundit]

I doubt you're a lawyer - how did she adduce new evidence? Form 34s are part of this cases - by law - IEBC are required to take all those forms to SCOK judges. The SCOK judges job is to verify these forms. Nowhere does it say - it should ask the Registar or Experts to do that for them - of course nowhere does it also deny them opportunity to seek expertise.

It's pertinent because that is extra evidence she is adducing, all produced in the secrecy of her back office.

[Omollo]

When were they handed over to her? The forms were requested as per Raila application. They were in the custody of the Court Registrar. The court and the respondents/ petitioners agreed on the modus operandi as to how to accommodate the application.

The petitioners were denied the opportunity to canvass the findings or both the IT and Forms. Both sides were limited to the report prepared jointly by all the parties.

Are you saying that Uhuru's agents SIGNED a fake report? Are you saying that Ngatia going in court to "correct" elelemts of the report which suggested his agents had made "no comment" and asking that "no comment" be changed  to "agreed" was all fake? That somehow Njoki has some super qualifications and is able to see what others did not see?

That said, what does she say about photocopied Forms? They are legal (meet "the threshold" to use her words)
What does she say about forms missing watermarks: They are legal

The reason her decision is incompetent is that while she wants the majority to follow precedent she does not. She sat on her huge ass to tell Wetangula that "the court cannot overlook an illegality"! Today she is saying the court can accept forgeries!

Go suck her

And where did she adduce evidence. All FORM 34As and Form 34BS were handed over to Njoki as per the law. They are part of evidence in the case by default. I don't know why you think she need leave to introduce form 34A or 34Bs which by law were taken to her - 4 days after Raila made a petition.

[vooke]

[vooke]

When were they handed over to her? The forms were requested as per Raila application. They were in the custody of the Court Registrar. The court and the respondents/ petitioners agreed on the modus operandi as to how to accommodate the application.

The petitioners were denied the opportunity to canvass the findings or both the IT and Forms. Both sides were limited to the report prepared jointly by all the parties.

Are you saying that Uhuru's agents SIGNED a fake report? Are you saying that Ngatia going in court to "correct" elelemts of the report which suggested his agents had made "no comment" and asking that "no comment" be changed  to "agreed" was all fake? That somehow Njoki has some super qualifications and is able to see what others did not see?

That said, what does she say about photocopied Forms? They are legal (meet "the threshold" to use her words)
What does she say about forms missing watermarks: They are legal

The reason her decision is incompetent is that while she wants the majority to follow precedent she does not. She sat on her huge ass to tell Wetangula that "the court cannot overlook an illegality"! Today she is saying the court can accept forgeries!

Go suck her

She scrutinized the annexures to the Petition not the ORIGINAL documents

[RV Pundit]

So you're actually arguing from point of ignorance as always. You need to read election act moron.

4 days after an presidential election is filled - IEBC MUST and THEY DID present all FORM 34 As and Form 34Bs.

This happened on August 24th - way before Raila interlocutory order - which was filled out of time and was in my view tangential to the case.

https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2017/08/23/iebc-delivers-forms-34-a-b-and-c-to-supreme-court_c1621566

When were they handed over to her? The forms were requested as per Raila application. They were in the custody of the Court Registrar. The court and the respondents/ petitioners agreed on the modus operandi as to how to accommodate the application.

The petitioners were denied the opportunity to canvass the findings or both the IT and Forms. Both sides were limited to the report prepared jointly by all the parties.

Are you saying that Uhuru's agents SIGNED a fake report? Are you saying that Ngatia going in court to "correct" elelemts of the report which suggested his agents had made "no comment" and asking that "no comment" be changed  to "agreed" was all fake? That somehow Njoki has some super qualifications and is able to see what others did not see?

That said, what does she say about photocopied Forms? They are legal (meet "the threshold" to use her words)
What does she say about forms missing watermarks: They are legal

The reason her decision is incompetent is that while she wants the majority to follow precedent she does not. She sat on her huge ass to tell Wetangula that "the court cannot overlook an illegality"! Today she is saying the court can accept forgeries!

Go suck her

[Kadame10]

My position is that it's not humanly impossible to do what she did within the time-frame. And it's not important to know how she did this. I am laser-focused on why her output and scok registar output differs. We have a judge saying the forms are kosher - and Registar saying the same forms are not. That is where the problem is....it calls for a review and maybe yet another scrutiny and verification...just for posterity sake and to determine if someone might have manipulated the court process. It could either mean Njoki is  liar - and therefore JSC out to remove her..or Nyakai & the team did their own stuff.

You need to pick a position: she did it herself or she let other people do it in secret while castigating her colleagues for doing it in public. I know clerks help with research. Personally, I've never known that they are allowed to examine evidence for themselves and make a finding which is then trusted by the judge as correct.

It matters if someone is introducing new arguments/debates/evidence after a judgment is final, through a judge.

I doubt you're a lawyer - how did she adduce new evidence? Form 34s are part of this cases - by law - IEBC are required to take all those forms to SCOK judges. The SCOK judges job is to verify these forms. Nowhere does it say - it should ask the Registar or Experts to do that for them - of course nowhere does it also deny them opportunity to seek expertise.

It's pertinent because that is extra evidence she is adducing, all produced in the secrecy of her back office.

Don't worry about what I do/did. It is new evidence because it is not plain on the face of the document. She needs to do something else to check it and make sure certain information is there/not. She can't do that in secret and then say "trust me, I checked it alone and this is what I discovered". There's a reason why there are elaborate rules of evidence, Pundit.

[RV Pundit]

No new evidence was ADDUCED.

Don't worry about what I do/did. It is new evidence because it is not on plain on the face of the document. She needs to do something else to check it and make sure certain information is there/not. She can't do that in secret and then say "trust me, I checked it alone and this is what I discovered". There's a reason why there are elaborate rules of evidence, Pundit.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

My position is that it's not humanly impossible to do what she did within the time-frame. And it's not important to know how she did this. I am laser-focused on why her output and scok registar output differs. We have a judge saying the forms are kosher - and Registar saying the same forms are not. That is where the problem is....it calls for a review and maybe yet another scrutiny and verification...just for posterity sake and to determine if someone might have manipulated the court process. It could either mean Njoki is  liar - and therefore JSC out to remove her..or Nyakai & the team did their own stuff.

You need to pick a position: she did it herself or she let other people do it in secret while castigating her colleagues for doing it in public. I know clerks help with research. Personally, I've never known that they are allowed to examine evidence for themselves and make a finding which is then trusted by the judge as correct.

Two judges saying there is no problem with the elections.  Four judges think that the elections were invalid.  Why shouldn't that also mean a review? 

[Kadame10]

No new evidence was ADDUCED.

Don't worry about what I do/did. It is new evidence because it is not on plain on the face of the document. She needs to do something else to check it and make sure certain information is there/not. She can't do that in secret and then say "trust me, I checked it alone and this is what I discovered". There's a reason why there are elaborate rules of evidence, Pundit.

Njoki would beg differ. She has presented a whole list of factual findings that no one produced but her.

[RV Pundit]

The four judges relied on Nyakai. If today we discover Nyakai lied - you think a legal review is not required. I am hoping you even understand what LEGAL REVIEW is in our laws. There is nothing like final decision in any matter human being. If today you were sentenced and you discover the evidence relied upon was faulty - you can always seek legal review.

Two judges saying there is no problem with the elections.  Four judges think that the elections were invalid.  Why shouldn't that also mean a review? 

[RV Pundit]

How would she present her analysis? Isn't that her job in determining the truth of the allegations made? How else would you expect her to deal with this matter - she has form 34s furnished to her as per the law - so she can do exactly this. She does her job as expected and you come here - shouting how did she do this? why did she do this.

Njoki would beg differ. She has presented a whole list of factual findings that no one produced but her.

[vooke]

[RV Pundit]

That is all I am trying to say in PLAIN ENGLISH. Obviously this is big because the majority heavily relied on Nyakai scrutiny report to annual the eletion.

IEBC gave SCOK  & all parties - COPIES.

They kept originals - Raila asked for the originals - turned out now the original and the copies DO NOT MATCH.

The issues then is to determine why the original and copies do not match. Where did these valid copies emanate from? Did someone replace the originals with fakes???

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

The four judges relied on Nyakai. If today we discover Nyakai lied - you think a legal review is not required. I am hoping you even understand what LEGAL REVIEW is in our laws. There is nothing like final decision in any matter human being. If today you were sentenced and you discover the evidence relied upon was faulty - you can always seek legal review.

Two judges saying there is no problem with the elections.  Four judges think that the elections were invalid.  Why shouldn't that also mean a review? 

You can seek redress.  But it takes more than a mere disagreement with the observation of one party.  The burden of proof in this case would be on Njoki.  As it stands right now, her opinion is little more than a fart.