Waititi Impeached!

[Nefertiti]

Kuria has been dancing about styling himself as a presidential candidate, Team Wanjiku, now back to Ruto. He is just another Waititu chest-thumping now until he is squeezed out of the gas business. There is no altruism here just self- interest. A few months ago Waititu was chest-thumping saying noone can force him to support Raila. After a few days in the cell he was stalking Uhuru all over begging forgiveness. Just shut down a few stations in lucrative towns and Kuria will abandon Tangatanga in a huff.

About Kikuyu - the hoi polloi cannot make head or tail of parliamentary vs presidential. They are sheeple just following their leaders. Ruto numbers will dwindle by attrition - Kanini Kega tops a long list - and the ground will fizzle too. By the time the Uhuru vs Ruto for PM whistle blows not even Kiunjuri will be standing behind your new hero.

That Robina ain't cheap propaganda no matter how many times you repeat saying so. And as i said you have to understand Kenya's history with this Parliamentary/Federal crap. From Independence up to the present. And how even in Naivasha they settled for Counties and Presidential system. If you do not appreciate that then you cannot understand why is it Uhuru is getting stiff opposition in his backyard. You will keep trying to believe it's because Ruto has bribed people or have rigged so and so... This is a genuine issue.

Second, BBI may pass but at least people should be left to decide whether they are for it or not.

Third, as i said before in my analysis Kalenjin are very much Okay with Presidential. And Parliamentary would also be okay with them. So even if you talk to Kalenjin influencers they say either way William at the moment is on the front seat.

[Nefertiti]

Kiambu folks have moved on... Waititu was a bad dream they won't indulge again. He needs to go back to hurling rocks at city askaris in Kayole.

[KenyanPlato]

Kiambu folks have moved on... Waititu was a bad dream they won't indulge again. He needs to go back to hurling rocks at city askaris in Kayole.

Impressed at the clarity of thought by kiambu residents. Waititi was imposed by kabete thugs on kiambu populace. He is gone and is headed for jail

[vooke]

There is no way "with necessary modifications" can mean shortening of time period. Even a 2nd year law student won't go that far. Necessary modification means where it refers to Governor-elect it can also refer to Deputy Governor or County Secretary. Or where it state him it can also refer to her. Where it says "duly elected" it can refer to a "court order declaring so and so as governor.."
To support this one has to bear in mind why elaborate procedures to swear in President and Governors were adopted in the constitution. It was to PREVENT NIGHT SWEARING like what ODM accused Kibaki of doing in 2097/08. Therefore no one can honestly and with intellectual acuity claim "necessary modification" means shortening of time period. It doesn't.

But those in legal fraternity knows the pressure to bear that was heaped on the Judiciary to expedite Nyoro swearing in. Indeed had we been under previous constitution Justice Onyiego would have been sacked or suspended by 1pm yesterday. Therefore his interpretation to mean "lessening of time period" is due to purely pressure. Even consider that Senate was finalising voting by 9pm and yet by early morning Judiciary and Senate and Government Printers had finalised all procedures and nitty gritties of swearing in. Right now the new Kenya is expediting harassing anyone who oppose the system. Tomorrow someone else will be in power and use similar methods.

Yes. Waititu is not a nice fella. But fidelity to law and procedures should not be determined by who we like and who we dislike. We all know he's fighting a losing battle but at least let it run its course in a civilised manner. Already the court declined to give orders/injunction stopping swearing in which says all needs to be said.

They are within the law. Read the Justice Onyiego take on the 10days as applies to the swearing in of a Deputy Governor. The period is subject to "necessary modification." It was a technicality - meaning the one day delay has no material effect. The high court already refused to block the swearing in.

Thanks for the compliments...those are small small technical/semantic  things you are worried about. we need to see Waitititu hauled to jail and his
properties auctioned to recover stolen funds. anything short of that is not good enough.

Very noble of you. You fight corruption by corrupting the law. What else can go wrong?

What do you mean it "is technicalities" only? It's the law. In an Act of Parliament. And there is a period of 10th day...

But then while BBI build its bridges law no longer matter. Someone wants Waititu gone asap come rain come sunshine such that even following laid down laws/procedures becomes cumbersome.


my friend we are tired, like tayad of baby sitting thieves. aint you mad bro of this daylight robbery by Waititu and his clan?
we need to know whe Waititu will refund the money he stole.

So it was technicalities.

Swearing in to proceed tomorrow

How long did Nyeri DG take before being sworn in?

[vooke]

"with necessary modification" cannot mean Lessening or extending time period for assumption of office because that is a SUBSTANTIVE part of that Act or put another way, its substantive law. And it clearly states "first Thursday after the 10th day..." That is clear. And to claim to "modify" that to mean 1 day through a Gazette Notice is being disingenuous and self serving interpretation of law. To change that you need to have the Act amended through Parliament. Gazette Notice cannot purport to amend or alter meaning of an Act. Otherwise the Executive would be ruling through decrees published in the Gazette Notice without regard to other laws.

Eg.. If Act says President to be sworn in on the 7th day after declaration of election results, it would be unacceptable for anyone to use "apply that with necessary modification" to mean you can swear within a day or 2 days.

Legally they want to swear Nyoro so that when Waititu is back in court on Monday the argument will be that Nyoro is already a governor, not Deputy. Therefore procedures to remove a Governor should apply. And Waititu would have effectively been denied any further argument...

Hey Garliv - am no lawyer but the good

Just asking,
How do you determine substantive and non-substantive aspects of this Act?

[Nefertiti]

There is no way "with necessary modifications" can mean shortening of time period. Even a 2nd year law student won't go that far. Necessary modification means where it refers to Governor-elect it can also refer to Deputy Governor or County Secretary. Or where it state him it can also refer to her. Where it says "duly elected" it can refer to a "court order declaring so and so as governor.."
To support this one has to bear in mind why elaborate procedures to swear in President and Governors were adopted in the constitution. It was to PREVENT NIGHT SWEARING like what ODM accused Kibaki of doing in 2097/08. Therefore no one can honestly and with intellectual acuity claim "necessary modification" means shortening of time period. It doesn't.

But those in legal fraternity knows the pressure to bear that was heaped on the Judiciary to expedite Nyoro swearing in. Indeed had we been under previous constitution Justice Onyiego would have been sacked or suspended by 1pm yesterday. Therefore his interpretation to mean "lessening of time period" is due to purely pressure. Even consider that Senate was finalising voting by 9pm and yet by early morning Judiciary and Senate and Government Printers had finalised all procedures and nitty gritties of swearing in. Right now the new Kenya is expediting harassing anyone who oppose the system. Tomorrow someone else will be in power and use similar methods.

Yes. Waititu is not a nice fella. But fidelity to law and procedures should not be determined by who we like and who we dislike. We all know he's fighting a losing battle but at least let it run its course in a civilised manner. Already the court declined to give orders/injunction stopping swearing in which says all needs to be said.

How long did Nyeri DG take before being sworn in?

Dr Wahome Gakuru died on Tuesday 7 November 2017 and Mutahi Kahiga was sworn in on Thursday 9 November 2017. 2 days later.

[Garliv]

The Act under discussion came into effect in the year 2019.

Dr Wahome Gakuru died on Tuesday 7 November 2017 and Mutahi Kahiga was sworn in on Thursday 9 November 2017. 2 days later.

[Garliv]

Most times application of "with necessary modification" doesn't give rise to dispute. Because the rule of the thumb is that if "modifying" gives rise to "different interpretation" than what Parliament intended when it enacted the law, then that is not "applying with necessary modification.." It is giving the Act a totally different meaning which is actually amending the Act.
In the current case, if you "replace" the word Governor-elect with Deputy Governor you are just applying the Act to apply to the Deputy Governor when he's being sworn in (you are applying the Act with necessary modification to fit the situation without changing its meaning). But when you claim that.... "the first Thursday after tenth day... " means swearing in can proceed within 1 day because it's applied "with necessary modification" then what you are doing you are actually shortening the waiting period which is clearly not the intent of the Act.

Just asking,
How do you determine substantive and non-substantive aspects of this Act?

[Nefertiti]

Even for Barchok I didn't hear any hullabaloo. The case of a DG taking over following impeachment is materially different from elections which have a history of disputes and mischief.

The Act under discussion came into effect in the year 2019.

Dr Wahome Gakuru died on Tuesday 7 November 2017 and Mutahi Kahiga was sworn in on Thursday 9 November 2017. 2 days later.

[Garliv]

If that were the case, why don't you claim the whole Act doesn't apply and we can make up procedures as the situation demands?

Even for Barchok I didn't hear any hullabaloo. The case of a DG taking over following impeachment is materially different from elections which have a history of disputes and mischief.

The Act under discussion came into effect in the year 2019.

Dr Wahome Gakuru died on Tuesday 7 November 2017 and Mutahi Kahiga was sworn in on Thursday 9 November 2017. 2 days later.

[Nefertiti]

The only way your position makes sense is to assume Justice Onyiego was intimidated or compromised. Otherwise his learned opinion is that the 10 day period is a necessary modification. I concur with the judge.

If that were the case, why don't you claim the whole Act doesn't apply and we can make up procedures as the situation demands?

Even for Barchok I didn't hear any hullabaloo. The case of a DG taking over following impeachment is materially different from elections which have a history of disputes and mischief.

The Act under discussion came into effect in the year 2019.

Dr Wahome Gakuru died on Tuesday 7 November 2017 and Mutahi Kahiga was sworn in on Thursday 9 November 2017. 2 days later.

[vooke]

Most times application of "with necessary modification" doesn't give rise to dispute. Because the rule of the thumb is that if "modifying" gives rise to "different interpretation" than what Parliament intended when it enacted the law, then that is not "applying with necessary modification.." It is giving the Act a totally different meaning which is actually amending the Act.
In the current case, if you "replace" the word Governor-elect with Deputy Governor you are just applying the Act to apply to the Deputy Governor when he's being sworn in (you are applying the Act with necessary modification to fit the situation without changing its meaning). But when you claim that.... "the first Thursday after tenth day... " means swearing in can proceed within 1 day because it's applied "with necessary modification" then what you are doing you are actually shortening the waiting period which is clearly not the intent of the Act.

Just asking,
How do you determine substantive and non-substantive aspects of this Act?

To be honest you said nothing. Any modification can amount to “different interpretation” if you chose to see it that way.  Supposing a governor dies today. The deputy assumes office. What value would ten days and Thursday rule add?

The reasoning behind the ten days is election results. Between provisional results and declaration of final results is a number of days. This is clearly unnecessary in the case of impeachment or death or resignation. That’s why the learned judge regarded it as “necessary modification”.

Non-negotiables would include serious matters such as being sworn in by a judge, gazetting the location and date of the swearing in etc

Btw, why do you think swearing a DG has “necessary modifications”? It is because a governor only comes to office through elections while a DG is through all those things I gave, death, impeachment, resignation....

[Nefertiti]

vooke, Garliv says "necessary modifications" is restricted to  appending "Deputy" in front of "Governor".

[Garliv]

1. 10 days are legal requirements. Not modifying according to ad hic wishes and political interests. If you can modify 10days to read 1 day, then why not 2days?4days? 5days? This would lead to absurdity.

2. Its a weak argument to claim 10days is restricted to election results only. Why would you justify 10days and not 5days or even 21 days? And no, in law there is nothing like provisional results. Results recognised by law are those published by IEBC in the Kenya Gazette. They are procedures for that. Therefore the issue of you claiming 10days on that basis of provisional is not accurate.

3. You also need to get Parliament Hansard and the historical reasons why elaborate swearing in was adopted in the constitution. Because it gives the reasoning behind having A SPECIFIC TIME PERIOD TO SWEAR OFFICIALS ESPECIALLY THE PRESIDENT. And some of the reasons were (a), to remove uncertainty and chaotic manner of swearing in where Government Officials could decide time and place of swearing in LIKE THIEVES IN THE NIGHT. Here revisit Kibaki swearing in of 2007/08. Apparently swearing in of DG Nyoro was designed to beat that aim. (b), to have sufficient time period in case of complains or legal challenge. This works with (a). That you cannot rush to swear someone just to escape legal challenge. Therefore certainty and reasonable time period was provided. In this Waititu Case, there was all indications legal challenge was on the way and therefore it was schemed to beat it. I could on for several other reasons including constitutional provisions but I would draft an essay!

4. The Act itself specifically deals with Assumptions of office by Governors and it envisions it will be applied to Governor-elect, DG and County Secretary or any other official/person being sworn in as Governor. Therefore where the Act refers to Governor elect it can also refer to County Secretary or DG if they are being sworn in as Governor. In this case DG was being sworn in as Governor and therefore to claim that 10days doesn't apply is just stretching imagination. It's rendering the Act useless and inapplicable in case of DG. Maybe they just need a specific Act for each occasion when Governor dies, is impeached, or resigns. This is of course unnecessarily cumbersome waste of time.

I repeat: the Act applies to anyone who is being sworn in as a Governor.

Finally, the issue of 10days is NOT MINOR. If parliament/law wanted fewer days to swear in DG then it should say so and not let guesswork prevail. We can as well modify and say it isn't necessary to be sworn in by Hihh Court, we can say Magistrate will do it!
NB: read the Act. There is even some Committee which should be formed to oversee Assumption of office, and it write reports, then issue to do with coordination of security agencies etc. If you read the whole of it then you can understand why 10days are envisioned and why those cannot be modified willy-nilly.

To be honest you said nothing. Any modification can amount to “different interpretation” if you chose to see it that way.  Supposing a governor dies today. The deputy assumes office. What value would ten days and Thursday rule add?

The reasoning behind the ten days is election results. Between provisional results and declaration of final results is a number of days. This is clearly unnecessary in the case of impeachment or death or resignation. That’s why the learned judge regarded it as “necessary modification”.

Non-negotiables would include serious matters such as being sworn in by a judge, gazetting the location and date of the swearing in etc

Btw, why do you think swearing a DG has “necessary modifications”? It is because a governor only comes to office through elections while a DG is through all those things I gave, death, impeachment, resignation....

[RV Pundit]

Very good wakili. But you know these ODMorons long lost their marbles after losing too many elections. Now anything goes.They are the most dangerous threat to kenya democracy and rule of law. An angry man is a dangerous man.

1. 10 days are legal requirements. Not modifying according to ad hic wishes and political interests. If you can modify 10days to read 1 day, then why not 2days?4days? 5days? This would lead to absurdity.

2. Its a weak argument to claim 10days is restricted to election results only. Why would you justify 10days and not 5days or even 21 days? And no, in law there is nothing like provisional results. Results recognised by law are those published by IEBC in the Kenya Gazette. They are procedures for that. Therefore the issue of you claiming 10days on that basis of provisional is not accurate.

3. You also need to get Parliament Hansard and the historical reasons why elaborate swearing in was adopted in the constitution. Because it gives the reasoning behind having A SPECIFIC TIME PERIOD TO SWEAR OFFICIALS ESPECIALLY THE PRESIDENT. And some of the reasons were (a), to remove uncertainty and chaotic manner of swearing in where Government Officials could decide time and place of swearing in LIKE THIEVES IN THE NIGHT. Here revisit Kibaki swearing in of 2007/08. Apparently swearing in of DG Nyoro was designed to beat that aim. (b), to have sufficient time period in case of complains or legal challenge. This works with (a). That you cannot rush to swear someone just to escape legal challenge. Therefore certainty and reasonable time period was provided. In this Waititu Case, there was all indications legal challenge was on the way and therefore it was schemed to beat it. I could on for several other reasons including constitutional provisions but I would draft an essay!

4. The Act itself specifically deals with Assumptions of office by Governors and it envisions it will be applied to Governor-elect, DG and County Secretary or any other official/person being sworn in as Governor. Therefore where the Act refers to Governor elect it can also refer to County Secretary or DG if they are being sworn in as Governor. In this case DG was being sworn in as Governor and therefore to claim that 10days doesn't apply is just stretching imagination. It's rendering the Act useless and inapplicable in case of DG. Maybe they just need a specific Act for each occasion when Governor dies, is impeached, or resigns. This is of course unnecessarily cumbersome waste of time.

I repeat: the Act applies to anyone who is being sworn in as a Governor.

Finally, the issue of 10days is NOT MINOR. If parliament/law wanted fewer days to swear in DG then it should say so and not let guesswork prevail. We can as well modify and say it isn't necessary to be sworn in by Hihh Court, we can say Magistrate will do it!
NB: read the Act. There is even some Committee which should be formed to oversee Assumption of office, and it write reports, then issue to do with coordination of security agencies etc. If you read the whole of it then you can understand why 10days are envisioned and why those cannot be modified willy-nilly.

To be honest you said nothing. Any modification can amount to “different interpretation” if you chose to see it that way.  Supposing a governor dies today. The deputy assumes office. What value would ten days and Thursday rule add?

The reasoning behind the ten days is election results. Between provisional results and declaration of final results is a number of days. This is clearly unnecessary in the case of impeachment or death or resignation. That’s why the learned judge regarded it as “necessary modification”.

Non-negotiables would include serious matters such as being sworn in by a judge, gazetting the location and date of the swearing in etc

Btw, why do you think swearing a DG has “necessary modifications”? It is because a governor only comes to office through elections while a DG is through all those things I gave, death, impeachment, resignation....