Category Archives: Law

Privacy issues of online marketing techniques in the information society

From: Yona Maro

In the digital economy, information plays a key role, as currency that makes the knowledge society further develop. In such world, ensuring privacy of personal data without restricting data flows and the economic and social benefits generated can prove in practice to be quite challenging. In the context of the increasing interest in social responsibility in business approaches, companies should take into account also the responsibility for collecting, processing and usage of consumers’ personal data, while carrying out their core functions. Thus, we analyze and debate on aspects related to direct marketing techniques and privacy issues, in a consumer-oriented approach, focusing on behavior of the Romanian consumer, with taking into consideration the fast development and use of ICT in business and the increasing regulations for ensuring consumer privacy. We raise into discussion aspects related to consumer behavior in function of means used in marketing, focusing more on the online than on the traditional means, from the perspective of ensuring privacy of consumers’ personal data. The analysis is based on data from a survey conducted in Romania in 2011 with regard to the Romanian consumer and direct marketing and also from techniques used in developing websites for gathering and processing user / consumer information, while taking into consideration the existing legal framework. We consider that companies should pay more attention to issues related to consumer privacy online, with ensuring appropriate information and obtaining consumer consent in collecting and using personal data for business development.

<a href=””></a>

Kenya: WaziWazi Legislative ‘Can’ Opener can Open Up those Opaque August Houses

From: Maurice Oduor

Oyoo wodma,

Contact me privately so I can take part in this.

I have some ideas that maybe of interest to you.

This is something that can be very beneficial.

– – – – – – – – – – –

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Nicholas Oyoo wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen, I entered an idea to open up the legislative houses in Kenya for public to participate, in a competition called the Global Innovation Competition – Making All Voices Count. The Idea is Called WaziWazi The Legislative ‘Can’ Opener. The Link is shared below . Please go into the page and vote for it. Thanks

<a href=”″></a>


From: Juma Mzuri

Recently, the President of the Republic Of Kenya, Uhuru Kenyatta, has been seen adorned in military attire at least twice this year. This has created a lot of frenzy from several quarters with some supporting this move with others opposing it. The first time he was seen wearing the military attire was in early September this year when he proceeded for a military function at Archer’s Post in Samburu. The second time was in mid-October 2014 when he officiated the Kenya Defense Forces Day at the Nakuru Military Academy in Lanet, Nakuru. Unlike the former Presidents’ Jomo Kenyatta and Daniel Arap Moi who adorned ceremonial military attires, Uhuru Kenyatta wore jungle-green military attire during the military function in Samburu and also appeared in navy fatigues during the KDF Day in Nakuru.

Those who support the president’s ‘new’ look argue that (among other reasons) there is nothing wrong with the president wearing the military attires. They label it as ‘military swag’ and applaud how ‘cool’ and ‘fresh’ he looks in the attire. However, those who oppose the move argue that (among other reasons) the president is trying to roll back the country into military dictatorship; and they further argue that it represents a failed or (soon to be) militarized nation, a dictator, or even an attempt by the president to camouflage the numerous failures and challenges that his government is facing when implementing government and public policy. However, both camps (those opposing and supporting the president in military attire) agree that it is a propagandist move or a move intended to appraise Uhuru’s status through public relations resulting from the buzz the whole scenario generates.

For others, they just saw the president ‘dressed in military uniform’. It was no big fete…

Nevertheless, should the decision by President Uhuru Kenyatta to adorn authentic military fatigues be a reason to worry or to make us to have sleepless nights? Is it true that he is trying to turn Kenya into a militarized nation with the recent two public stunts that he pulled by adorning military attire?

First, let us revisit the Supreme Law and what it says about the relationship between the president’s office and that of the military. According to article 131(1) (c) of the Kenyan Constitution, the president is the Commander-In-Chief of the Kenya Defense Forces. His roles as the Commander In Chief are outlined in Section 9 of the Kenya Defense Forces Act, and which are to appoint the Chief of the Defense Forces, Vice Chief of the Defense Forces and the three Service Commanders; and to be responsible for the organization and command of the Defense Forces.

Therefore, the president is not part of the military personnel. He or she is the civilian head responsible for the Defense Forces in terms of organization (structuring and management) and command (giving official authoritative orders). In terms of organization, he acts as the chair of the National Security Council that exercises supervisory control over the national security organs (Article 240). Nevertheless, the law is obscure on whether the president should dress in military attire as part of his duty as Commander-in-Chief.

In my view, the decision by President Uhuru Kenyatta to adorn military fatigues is just a PR move. It is no secret that the Jubilee government is a poorly performing government and it has tried all means, some dubious and foolhardy, in order to regain, retain and maintain public confidence and to also appear ahead as popular in opinion polls. The jubilee government is led by words without action. Thus, the means of persuasion like propaganda, public relations, social media, mainstream media and photo shopping come in handy to propel the exact image they want to feed to the citizens. The buzz created on social media and mainstream media after when the president adorns the jungle-green military attire is sure proof of the how desperate this government is at attention-seeking. It should not alarm us all.

Before, we have seen laws in parliament by the Executive that tried to politicize the military by having internal deployment of KDF done by the Executive without parliamentary approval. Fortunately, parliament rejected this proposal. Therefore, in view of such moves, let’s stay alert to prevent the president from negating the rule of law and the constitution in attempts to plunge this country into retrogression (dictatorship, militarization, etc). Otherwise, his decision to adorn military attire is just pure PR.

(View the original article here
<a href-“”></a>

Africa: Legislation Under Consideration by the Government of South Sudan

From: U.S. Department of State
Press Statement
Jen Psaki
Department Spokesperson
Washington, DC
October 3, 2014

The United States government urges the Government of South Sudan to engage in an inclusive consultation process on draft legislation aimed at regulating Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) operations and the National Security Services (NSS).

We are deeply concerned that the current NGO bill, as drafted, could restrict civil society space and hinder the formation and operation of NGOs. As the leading donor of humanitarian and development assistance in South Sudan, we are particularly concerned that this bill would further restrict the delivery of life-saving humanitarian assistance and limit the important work that NGOs are doing to promote health, education, and overall development. We are also concerned that the NSS bill appears to curtail due process and is at odds with freedoms enshrined in South Sudan’s Transitional Constitution and international norms. Regulation and codification can be appropriate, but should be done in a manner that preserves freedoms of association, assembly, and speech and protects civil liberties.

We welcome previous engagement by the Government of South Sudan with civil society on the NGO bill, and urge it to continue the dialogue with the legislature and civil society on both draft bills. Strengthening the rule of law and ensuring that a vibrant civil society can contribute to social, economic, and political development, in partnership with the Government, will best ensure stability, prosperity, and peace for all of South Sudan’s people.
The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Stay connected with the State Department:

vil Men, Evil Agendas!

From: ‘frank patrick materu’

GEOENGINEERING (Global Weather Modification) is threatening all life on earth.

Geoengineers deny having deployed aerosol programs for years, yet they are currently proposing to spray 10-20 million tons of aluminum oxide other toxic chemicals into our sky annually as stated in numerous geoengineering documents. Lab tests have disclosed extremely high levels of these metals in ground, water, rain and atmospheric tests worldwide. Blood and urine tests reveal alarming levels of aluminum, barium, strontium, cadmium, and other chemicals known to cause high blood pressure, cancer, asthma, Alzheimers, heart, kidney and liver damage, osteoporosis, chronic inflammation, headaches, skin disorders, severe lung, spleen and intestinal diseases, immune system decline, blurred vision, intense ringing in ears, muscle weakness, hear loss, etc. NO purpose justifies these consequences.

Chemtrials are we the experiment? What do you think about this?

Frank Materu

Geoengineering Affects You and Your Loved Ones


Geoengineering Affects You and Your Loved Ones
documenting the chemtrail-geoengineering coverup
View on www.geoengineerin…
Preview by Yahoo

African rights court elect Judge Augustino Ramadhani as top judge

From: Abdalah Hamis

Judge Augustino Ramadhani of Tanzania was elected on Monday as the new President of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Right (AfCHPR).

Ramadhani, former Tanzanian Chief Justice, win the votes of seven of the court’s 11 serving judges.

He replaced Sophia Akuffo of Ghana who led the Court for the past two years.

Apart from stepping down as court President, Akuffo and two other judges have completed their service at AfCHPR.



From: joachim omolo ouko
News Dispatch with Father Omolo Beste

The report of the Ndungu Commission on illegal and irregular allocation of public land gives one of the major reasons why Kenyan people opted for the new constitution. Under the old law, it was only the President, who had the right to allocate unalienated government lands, with the new constitution, even though Jubilee government wants to return it back as it were, with the national land commission in place it is going to make this attempt difficult, especially after referendum.

With the new constitution the President cannot exercise his powers without paying regard to the public interest. In any process of allocation, a formal offer of sale is made to an approved purchaser by the Commissioner for Lands and not the president.

The issue of land has been an emotive and sometimes volatile issue in Kenya since independence in 1963, and has dominated political campaigns. The new constitution backs radical land reforms, as well as allowing women to inherit land.

Against the background the 2005 constitution was rejected by Kenyan people. It watered down clauses hammered out at the National Constitutional Conference of 2003-2004. The conference called for a strong prime ministerial role but the revised draft retains a strong presidency.

Those campaigning for a “No” vote argued that power needed to be shared out, so that one person could no longer dominate the country as in the past. This, they said, would help fight corruption – a big problem in Kenya.

President Mwai Kibaki led the “Yes” campaign under the symbol of a banana. The “No” camp claim the orange as their symbol. It brought together seven cabinet ministers and the official opposition party, Kanu.

Roads Minister Raila Odinga, Environment Minister Kalonzo Musyoka and opposition leader Uhuru Kenyatta were its most prominent members. Christian churches, Islamic leaders and civil rights groups back Orange.

The 2005 Kenyan Constitutional Referendum was held on 21 November 2005. The proposed new constitution was voted down by a 58 percent majority of Kenya’s voters. The main issues of contention throughout the drafting of the constitution were over how much power should be vested in the President.

After Kibaki was defeated he dismissed his entire cabinet and deputy ministers. The result was seen as a protest against Mr Kibaki, and there was speculation that ministers opposed to the draft would not be part of the new team.

Campaigners celebrating the “No” vote asked their opponents to join them in drafting a fresh constitution, hence the 2010 constitution.

Although land is still major issue, with the new constitution Kenyans have achieved a lot. Corruption has improved from ‘highly acute’ to merely ‘rampant’. Unlike before when too many of the new ruling elite were out to get rich, rather than govern, the new constitution has prevented this.

Kenya is probably somewhat better off than it was under old constitution. Several ministers involved in corruption scandals who were going unpunished can no longer do so.

Fr Joachim Omolo Ouko, AJ
Tel +254 7350 14559/+254 722 623 578
Facebook-omolo beste



A Federal High Court sitting in Nigeria’s Federal Capital Territory, Abuja this afternoon granted an order of mandamus compelling the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission-EFCC to explain why it must not release the information requested by a Civil Society Coalition under the Freedom of Information Act.

Federal High Court 2, Abuja, presided over by Justice Kasarati granted the leave as sought by the plaintiff- Media Initiative against Injustice, Violence and Corruption-MIIVOC to issue an order of mandamus against the anti-corruption Agency.

Reacting to the Court decision, Counsel to MIIVOC, Barrister Obasi Agu expressed satisfaction with what he described as judicial uprightness and expressed confidence that justice shall prevail.

“The implication of today’s court pronouncement is that the Court has issued an order, compelling the EFCC to explain to the Court why it must not make the information requested by my client available to him. The Commission has about fourteen days to respond.”

Adding his voice, MIIVOC Executive Director, Walter Duru expressed confidence in the ability of the judiciary to deliver justice, reiterating the coalition’s commitment to making anti-Corruption agencies in the country accountable.

He decried what he described as the absence of transparency and accountability in the operations of anti-corruption agencies in the country and reiterated his coalition’s commitment to righting the wrongs in the system.

It would be recalled that a Coalition of Civil Society Organisations under the aegis of Media Initiative against Injustice, Violence and Corruption-MIIVOC dragged the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission-EFCC to Court over its refusal to respond to a request made under the Freedom of Information Act.

The matter filed in Federal High Court, Abuja, with Suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/265/13 between the Incorporated Trustees of Media Initiative against Injustice, Violence and Corruption as plaintiff and the Executive Chairman, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission-EFCC-defendant, prays the Court to compel the defendant to make available the information sought by the Plaintiff in accordance with section 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011.

The matter seeks four reliefs, among which is “a declaration by the Court that the denial of assess by the respondents to make available to the applicant the information sought, without explanation amounts to a violation of the applicant’s right to information enshrined in the Freedom of Information Act 2011, section 4”

MIIVOC had through a letter dated 27th January, 2014, invoked the Freedom of information act via a request for information bothering on credibility, finances and Police presence in the Commission, a copy of which he displayed.

According to the FOI request, signed by the Organisation’s Programme and Publicity Director, Philip Inyang, copy of which is acknowledged by the EFCC, MIIVOC made a 7-point demand that centered on the controversies surrounding the Commission’s financial state, alleged dominance of the Commission by the Police and other credibility issues.

“We refer to the August 5, 2013 publication on Daily Sun Newspapers and the Punch newspaper of August 2nd, 2013 which reported that there are about 700 Policemen working in the EFCC, majority of whom are top management Staff. In another report in the Nigerian, an online newspaper, it was alleged that most heads of Units, Departments and zones in the Commission are headed by Policemen, irrespective of qualifications, federal character and background. In response to the Vanguard Newspapers publication of January 21st, 2013, the EFCC Spokesman denied the predominant presence of Policemen in the Commission, without explaining what the 700 policemen are doing in EFCC and how 700 policemen, out of less than 1,200 EFCC staff is not a predominant figure in an organization that was created more than ten years ago. He also failed to address the issues raised in the report by the Senate where EFCC was alleged to be spending funds meant for the recruitment of new staff and payment of benefits to its core officials to Police.”

“On ThisDay newspaper of 17th December, 2013, the Commission was quoted as being broke and having less than N2m in her accounts. In another statement credited to the Commission’s Spokesman, Wilson Uwajuren and published on Vanguard and Guardian newspapers of 19th December, 2013, the Commission was reported to have somersaulted, claiming that it was not broke.”

“To sustain the credibility of this Commission among Nigerians and at the international level, a more robust and convincing response is expected from the Commission in situations such as this, considering the series of controversies that have trailed the Commission’s activities and operations lately.”

“It is the need for this credibility and in view of the right of Nigerians to know, that we most respectfully invoke Sections 1, 2 (3)(V), 2(3)(Vi) of the 2011 Freedom of Information Act to request for the following: Details of all Police officers posted to EFCC, their qualifications, ranks, and duties as well as dates of secondment to EFCC; Details of police officers that are in charge of operations, sections and units of EFCC; Details of senior officers of EFCC occupying Directorate positions and the number that are supposed to be in Directorate positions if not for the police officers; The volume and value of EFCC funds (INCLUDING NON-APPROPRIATED FUNDS) that go to the Police, Ministry of Trade and Investment Special Control Unit Department, Training of staff, number of officials of EFCC trained (and other officials who are not EFCC officials) and how much was saved from EFCC budget in 2013 given all the international funding and support it obtained in 2012/2013.

Other requests are: Details of support and funding from the international community in 2013, especially, funds from: GIABA/ECOWAS and World Bank; Details of EFCC officials trained by international agencies in 2013 and how much was saved in the budget of EFCC because of this support and the actual financial statement of the Commission, as at December 31st, 2013.

Media Initiative against Injustice, Violence and Corruption (MIIVOC) is a coalition of communication, civil society and human rights activists and groups with interest in the war against injustice, Violence, immorality and corruption, as well as the protection of human rights, from a communication perspective. It is believed to be working with a coalition of over twenty different non-governmental Organisations in the Project.

Among the NGOs in the Coalition are: Network on Police Reforms in Nigeria-NOPRIN; International Association of Criminal Justice Practitioners-IACJP; Foundation for Environmental Rights, Advocacy and Development- FENRAD; Citizens Centre for Integrated Development and Social Rights-CCIDSOR, Center for Zero Violence Advocacy-CEZVA; Media Initiative Against Injustice, Violence and Corruption; Initiative for Reorientation for Peace-building –I-REP, among others.

Philip Inyang
Director, Publicity

Uganda clarifies on homosexual law

By Vision reporter

The government of Uganda has clarified its position on the anti-homosexuality Act.
In a statement released this afternoon the Government said the Act was misrepresented.

“…its enactment has been misinterpreted as a piece of legislation intended to punish and discriminate against people of a “homosexual orientation”, especially by our development partners.” The statement read in part

Here is the full statement

Statement by Uganda Govt on Anti Homosexuality Act


From: joachim omolo ouko
News Dispatch with Father Omolo Beste
MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2040

Amos from Westlands, Nairobi writes: “Dear Fr. Joachim, tension is building around the country. Our leaders are not doing us justice. I would urge the President to take leadership to a new level and avoid statements like the ones he gave after the attack in Mpeketoni. In some parts of Kiambu, Naivasha, Molo, Nakuru a certain community was being told to vacate.

Now that Alshabab has continued to claim responsibility in the attack and have said they are posting a video of the attack, will our leaders rescind their negative ethnic statements and unite the country? This country will burn if we are not careful and badly. Let us spread message of unity and peace. Our Media is also very reckless showing raw materials and ethnic incitements. Poor Us!!!!!!!

Standard- has reported that the US and the UK insist the recent killings in Mpeketoni were a terror attack and not politically instigated, contradicting President Uhuru Kenyatta’s earlier statement. At the same time, the US announced it is relocating some of its staff in Nairobi to other countries following perpetual security threats. What is your take?’

Thank you Amos. I think the report by the US and UK is the correct one because even Al-Shabab has said it carried out the attack in order to take revenge on Kenya for the presence of its troops in Somalia, where they are battling the militants, as well as for the killing of radical clerics linked to al-Shabab in the port city of Mombasa.

It could also be that local Somalis and Oromos who claim the area as their ancestral home are trying to drive out Kikuyus, who they see as interlopers in Mpketoni. Reacting to the president Uhuru’s father for having illegally giving the area to his ethnic Kikuyus in the 1960s.

It is not only US and UK, even the opposition politicians have dismissed the president’s statement as a “joke”. President Kenyatta up to now has not named the local political group he was accusing.

This brings us to speculations that President Kenyatta would want to downplay the al-Shabab angle in order to try and protect Kenya’s embattled tourist industry and also to enable him to send security services of his choice in Lamu County.

Robert writes via iPad: “Fr Beste I read your article why President Uhuru will not implement Truth Justice and Reconciliation recommendations. Is it one of the reasons why he is not willing to have national dialogue?”

Robert, yes you are also right. Truth Justice and Reconciliation and National Dialogue demanded by CORD are similar. In 2008 I managed to capture what IDPs themselves demanded from President Mwai Kibaki concerning the need for dialogue, reconciliation and healing in Kenya-click here to read the article- Government undersiege as they forcefully resettle IDPs.

When the Government of Kenya began resettling more than 10,000 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in 2008, thousands of them who had been camping at the Nakuru Agricultural Society of Kenya (ASK) show ground, pleaded with Kibaki that his Government should have reconciled them with the neighbouring communities first instead of rushing to resettle them.

They said it was necessary for dialogue, reconciliation which would open the way for healing. Mzee Ibrahim Githatwa, 76, was among the IDPs who vowed never to go back to Keringet in Kuresoi where he had lived since the 1942 but was forcefully told to leave the premises.

Mzee Githatwa and a father of 13 children had also suffered a great deal under President Moi’s regime. During Moi he lost seven houses in the 1992 ethnic violence. Even after he could manage, together with some of his children to build five houses, they again got burnt down his house during the post-election violence.

The 13 farms where some IDPs were told to reallocate, including Sirikwa, Kiambogo, Githirika, Muthenji, Nyota, Kangawa and Lagwenda, Sasumua, Willa, Muchorwe, Karirikania, Kadonye and Nyaruai have history of violence every five years when they have general elections.

These are some of the areas that have been the scene of periodic violence since 1992. The land dispute around these areas, especially in Molo and Kuresoi is between the Kalenjin, Kikuyu and Kisii.

According to the annexes to the Ndung’u land dispute report released in 2004 the families of former presidents Jomo Kenyatta and Daniel arap Moi feature prominently in the list of prominent high ranking politicians and people who matter in Kenya government as those who have grabbed public land that was recommended for repossession.

If the government were to take action it would mean that names of all those who have been irregularly allocated public land in urban areas, settlement schemes, forests and reserves, with Moi alone owning 937 hectare farm in Narok hived off Trans Mara Forest be repossessed, then this would at least solve some of the land problems in the country.

The problem would even be more resolved if the government were to go by the Ndungu recommendation that allocation of various parcels to Mama Ngina Kenyatta be revoked. It includes 38 hectares hived off the Kikuyu Escarpment Forest in Kiambu District in 1965, including another 36 hectares in Thika District from the same Kikuyu Escarpment forest allocated to her in 1980 for farming, which Ndungu also recommended to be reclaimed, as well as another 24 hectare parcel allocated in 1993.

Among the cabinet ministers, judges and top soldiers listed to be among beneficiaries of settlement schemes carved out of Agricultural Development Corporation farms include then minister of State William ole Ntimama, assistant minister Kipkalya Kones, Court of Appeal Judge Emmanuel O’Kubasu and deputy chief of general staff, Lt Gen Nick Leshan.

Mr Ntimama was allocated 34 acres of Moi Ndabi Farm where Mr Leshan got 233 acres. Mr Kones got 145 acres in the Agricultural Development Corporation Sirikwa scheme where the average allocations were five acres, according to the report. Mr Justice O’Kubasu got 40 acres. Other according to the report include retired Judge Mbito who was allocated 50 acres.

The report recommended that former Lands and Settlement minister Jackson Angaine’s 900 hectares of land hived off from Mount Kenya forest in 1975 and 1977. If taken seriously, Ndung’u report would mean that many individual Kenyans who illegally acquired land would lose them.

Against background that constitutional review to address fundamental issues of land tenure and land use. The development and implementation of land policies, national land use policy and enactment of attendant legislations.

Land laws was to be harmonised into one statute to reduce multiple allocations of title deeds. Land ownership document replacement for owners affected by post-election violence, development of a national land use master plan, taking into account environmental considerations.

Land reform transformation unit in the ministry of lands to facilitate the implementation of the land reform programme as outlined in the national land use policy. Strengthen local-level mechanisms for sustainable land rights administration and management.

Finalise the land dispute tribunal act. Land reform process was to be factored in the constitutional review process within 12 months.

On Truth Justice and Reconciliation, the Commission recommended that between 1963 and 1978 when President Jomo Kenyatta presided over a government that was responsible for numerous gross violations of human rights, justice and reconciliation would focus on Shifta War, killings, torture, collective punishment and denial of basic needs (food, water and health care).

Political assassinations of Pio Gama Pinto, Tom Mboya and J.M. Kariuki; arbitrary detention of political opponents and activists; and illegal and irregular acquisition of land by the highest government officials and their political allies.

Under Moi it would involve massacres; unlawful detentions, and systematic and widespread torture and ill-treatment of political and human rights activists. Assassinations, including of Dr. Robert Ouko; Illegal and irregular allocations of land; and economic crimes and grand corruption.

Under Kibaki the report recommended that it would focus on unlawful detentions, torture and ill-treatment; assassinations and extra judicial killings; and economic crimes and grand corruption, including Anglo Leasing scandals.

The Commission found that historical grievances over land constitute the single most important driver of conflicts and ethnic tension in Kenya. Close to 50 percent of statements and memorandum received by the Commission related to or touched on claims over land.

The Commission also found that minority groups and indigenous people suffered state sanctioned systematic discrimination during the mandate period (1963- 2008). In particular, minority groups have suffered discrimination in relation to political participation and access to national identity cards. Other violations that minority groups and indigenous people have suffered include: collective punishment; and violation of land rights and the right to development.

Fr Joachim Omolo Ouko, AJ
Tel +254 7350 14559/+254 722 623 578
Facebook-omolo beste


From: Charles Banda

The Newly Controversial Elected Government of Democratic Progressive Party under the Leadership of Peter Muthalika is continuing harassing former Malawi Head Of State Dr. Joyce Banda.

The Former Head Of State Dr Joyce Banda has until to date not been given Her Constitutional Presidential Benefit and Previledges Act rights.

Dr Joyce Banda under the Act is supposed to be given A Fully Furnished House, Cars, Security and Salary but it has been noted with sadness that none of the Said Previledges have been given or been fulfilled. The public are wondering as whether this DPP Government has the welfare of The Former Head Of State taking into account of what President Peter Muthalika said during his inaugural Speech recently in Blantyre.

In another Sudden event, The DPP Government met Public Affairs Committee where some over zealous DPP members suggested that DPP is ready to arrest Dr Joyce Banda for flimsy charges so as just to harass Her, but PAC has strongly warned DPP never and never to harass Dr Joyce Banda as many Malawians are still very angry with the way Elections were held in the country.

Public Affairs Committee is a Powerful Civil Society Organisation and when they say something about the Country issues they mean business, on the day they reminded DPP as to how Dr Joyce Banda treated them when their Leader Bingu died, She borrowed Fuels all over Africa to assist Bingu Family, Her Government gave State Funeral to the late and Her Government also accepted 90 days Mourning Period which was regarded as a good gesture.

The Public is asking the DPP Government to fulfill the Constitutional Previledges to the Former President Dr Joyce Banda and should stop harassing her.


From: joachim omolo ouko
News Dispatch with Father Omolo Beste
FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 2014

Lorene from Bungoma writes: “Fr Beste what do you say about the order by the Director of Public Prosecutions that Gatundu South parliamentary aspirant Moses Kuria should be prosecuted for hate speech. Do you think this can end hate speech in Kenya?

A statement posted on the DPP’s Twitter account says Kuria will face charges following recommendations by the National Cohesion and Integration Commission. He is accused for having posted inflammatory remarks in a Facebook conversation.

The Law Society of Kenya has also written to Tobiko, seeking to have two Members of Parliament investigated for hate speech, Othaya MP Mary Wambui and her Starehe counterpart Maina Kamanda for remarks they made recently on Cord leader Raila Odinga that he went to America for military training how to remove Uhuru from power, and that he came with grenades to kill particular ethnic communities.

I also saw yesterday on KTN news at 7pm Mohamed Ali showing Aden Duale on the top of his voice openly abusing Raila and Luo people in Parliament, and how Raila is shedding blood of innocent people in order to take power from Uhuru. Millie Odhiambo was annoyed with Duale’s remarks and angrily talked on top of her voice.

Mohamed also showed the clip where Otieno Kajwang was openly abusing Uhuru Kenyatta in public. Surely Father, where is our beloved country Kenya leading us? I am just disgusted and tired of these hate speech from our politicians. They just incite Kenyans along tribal and religious line. This should stop.”

Thank you for this concern Lorene. I was also as disgusted as I watched that clip on KTN, especially when Kamanda said: “I want to tell Raila that all members of the Kikuyu community will protect Uhuru’s Presidency by all means necessary, even if it means shedding blood.

The fact that we are silent does not mean that we don’t know what is happening. I urge you all to be ready to respond when we sound the warning. We must defend the Uhuru Government,” Kamanda was seen saying in public. This is of course the first class hate that we should not allow in Kenya.

Wambui was also seen saying: “You have been sleeping and the time has come for you to wake up. We cannot allow this man to destabilise this country the same way South Sudan is going.” Kamanda was accompanied by MPs Kareke Mbiuki (Maara), Francis Waititu (Juja), Chege Njoroge (Kasarani), Ben Mutura (Makadara), Richard Tongi (Nyaribari Chache), Kimani Inchung’wa (Kikuyu) and George Theuri (Embakasi West).

DDP also ordered Mombasa the arrest of Women’s Representative, Mishi Juma for hate incitement speech during Madaraka Day celebrations. Last year James Orengo of Siaya, and Otieno Kajwang’ of Homa Bay were also ordered to appear in court for hate speech.

The two ODM Senators were alleged to have incited former Prime Minister, Raila Odinga, to overthrow the Government of President Uhuru Kenyatta and his Deputy, William Ruto, when the two would both be at The Hague attending their trials at the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the same time. They urged Raila to prepare to take over power once the two jailbirds would be away in The Hague.

The reason why such hate speeches cannot end in Kenya Lorene, is because nothing is done to them whenever such prosecutions are made. Former Assistant Roads Minister Wilfred Machage (now Migori Senator) was charged with inciting hatred but could not be jailed even after Mwai Kibaki suspending him from his ministry.

Along with two other MPs, he was charged with hate speech during the campaign for a new constitution. They allegedly said some ethnic groups would have to leave their land if the constitution was approved.

By then Higher Education Minister William Ruto (now deputy president) was among three MPs accused of hate speech but not charged. Mr Ruto was alleged to have asked Muslims to reject the proposed constitution if they do not want a war with Christians.

NCIC chairman Mzalendo Kibunjia wanted the politicians to be prosecuted quickly after the experience of 2008 but this has never been successful, thus frustrating the office of the NCIC. This is the same with former Environment Minister Chirau Mwakwere who was accused of hate speech but late cleared of the charges.

In the case, Mwakwere was alleged to have made a speech, during a by-election campaign in his constituency in July 2010, to the effect that indigenous coastal people have been oppressed by Arabs.

Be assured Lorene, that when it comes to social media hate speech cannot be controlled. This is because internet users, especially young people in particular, have found social media, particularly Facebook as their right to perceive their online interactions as benefitting from the freedoms of expression and information.

Another reason why you cannot control hate speech on social media in Kenya is because of accumulated anger since 1992 ethnic violence to date. Many Kenyans are so angry to the extent that they do not care whether you charge them or not.

Anger comes about when one feels that his or her basic boundaries are violated. That is why most social media users use it to react to anger through retaliation. People feel angry when they sense that they or someone they care about has been offended.

Fr Joachim Omolo Ouko, AJ
Tel +254 7350 14559/+254 722 623 578
Facebook-omolo beste

Joyce Banda faces arrest: Political will to have Malawi ex-leader indicted

From: Juma Mzuri

Joyce Banda faces arrest: Political will to have Malawi ex-leader indicted

After former Malawian President Joyce Banda has indicated that she will not quit politics as she will be leading People’s Party (PP) in rebuilding process for 2019 elections, the government is rolling its wheels that she should face an arrest for alleged offenses signalled by the new President Peter Mutharika.


From: Fakhi Karume

In international diplomacy the terms “Ambassador” and “High Commissioner” are both used to refer to diplomats of the highest rank representing either a sovereign state or international organisation who is accredited to another sovereign state and or international organisation.

Since the 1815 Congress of Vienna, the status of Ambassadors has been defined and protected under international law as the recognized representatives of their respective heads of state who generally are also invested with “plenipotentiary powers”, meaning the full authority to represent their governments.

Their status as sovereign representatives explains why they are formally addressed as “His” or “Her Excellency” when at their external postings, as well as the need for them to present their credentials to the heads of state in the countries they are accredited to.

The term High Commissioner is reserved for those diplomats of Ambassador rank who are the head of a diplomatic mission of one Commonwealth government, such as Pakistan and Uganda, to another, such as Botswana. The use of the term “High Commission” as opposed to “Embassy” is in this context the proper designation for any Commonwealth nation’s diplomatic mission to another member state of the Commonwealth.


From: ‘Judy Miriga’

Diaspora Spokesperson
Executive Director
Confederation Council Foundation for Africa Inc.,

– – – – – – – – – – –

Pitson – Lingala Ya Yesu

Prezda Bandason – Christina & Beautiful Nyiluo

Madanji Perimeter & Maxwell -Christina

Odos Jasuba: Wendo

Odosh Jasuba

Aboy lanlord – Arossy

20ème Anniversaire – Franco & le T.P. O.K. Jazz 1976


Uhuru: Dialogue any time, but campaign later
On Friday, I hosted a huge delegation from the Kenya Private Sector Alliance for our quarterly roundtable. For the whole afternoon, we engaged in intensive discourse over a wide range of issues, and received reports on a multiplicity of initiatives aimed at making the business environment more conducive to greater productivity and competitiveness.

RAILA: We must talk, and this is why
One of the unfortunate assumptions that African countries have made in adopting western democracy is that those who get elected are infused by their victory with an omniscience that enables them to formulate solutions for all the country’s problems.

Stalemate as Cord, Jubilee leaders maintain hardline positions
The question on whether there should be a national dialogue conference as proposed by CORD seems to be generating more heat than light a week later.

Mudavadi offers to lead mediation on proposed national dialogue
After a year in the political cold, former Deputy Prime Minister Musalia Mudavadi has finally asked President Uhuru Kenyatta to give him a chance as a mediator in the national dialogue that the opposition and Cord leader Raila Odinga has asked for.

Uhuru: Let’s go slow on politics, focus on growth
President Uhuru Kenyatta made a triumphant entry in former Prime Minister Raila Odinga’s Nyanza backyard with calls on the opposition to stop blame games.


10 hours ago
Rejuvenated Muite is back and enjoying every bit of the game

By Nation Correspondent

More by this Author

The recent involvement of veteran lawyer Paul Muite in a series of high-profile cases has led to suggestions that the former Kikuyu MP and unsuccessful presidential candidate is on the rise again after a trying period marked by the loss of political favour and financial challenges.

Muite, who was recently appointed by the Director of Public Prosecutions to carry out an independent assessment of the claims of wrongdoing surrounding the government’s acquisition of Malili ranch, has been the lawyer for the Judicial Service Commission, which he has represented in a number of high profile assignments, including before the committees of Parliament.

Muite has also acted in the legal proceedings spawned by the impeachment of Embu Governor Martin Wambora, and also for the Media Owners Association in the battle with the government over the switch to digital television.


Muite is one of the best known lawyers the country has ever produced. He was a fearless lawyer during the one-party era and represented several people considered enemies of the Kanu regime. Among his big cases at the time was the defence of the late George Anyona, Njeru Kathangu, Prof Edward Oyugi, and Isaiah Ngotho Kariuki in their trial for sedition in 1990, one of the last acts of tyranny before the Kanu regime caved in to pressure for multiparty politics.

In the same year, Muite was elected chair of the Law Society of Kenya, an event that coincided with great political activity as the forces of reforms fought for a resumption of multiparty politics, which Kanu fiercely resisted.

Muite was one of the actors behind the Kamukunji rally held that year, which demanded a resumption of multiparty politics. Charles Rubia and Kenneth Matiba were detained without trial after the rally, and Gibson Kamau Kuria fled the country to avoid a similar fate.

While it was widely expected that Muite would also be detained, he turned up at State House instead, accompanied by his wife, for dialogue with Moi. The mystery remains how he managed to arrange all that and to avoid detention himself.


Before multiparty politics resumed in 1992, Muite had teamed up with opposition figures, including the Opposition leader Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, to form the Forum for Restoration of Democracy (Ford), which Jaramogi chaired, with Muite as the vice-chair. When Ford was transformed into a political party, it splintered into Ford Kenya led by Jaramogi, and Ford Asili, led by Matiba, after the leaders failed to agree on a presidential flagbearer.

Muite stuck with Ford Kenya, becoming its vice-chair, and supported Jaramogi’s presidential candidature in the country’s first multiparty elections. He has written on his website that “Jaramogi had wanted Muite to be his successor as leader of the party.” Although Jaramogi lost his presidential bid in the 1992 elections, Muite was elected MP for Kikuyu.

In Parliament, Muite was one of the five members referred to as the Young Turks, who were regarded to be pursuing a progressive agenda in the House. In the later stages, he served as chair of the Legal Affairs Committee, a position to which he brought much of his vigorous style. It is thought that the subsequent chairs of this committee have heavily been influenced by Muite’s style in the manner in which they seek to lead it.

One of the issues that Muite had championed while chairing the LSK was accountability for the Goldenberg scandal that broke out during his term. Amid a refusal by the government to take action against the perpetrators of the scandal, Muite led the society in bringing a private prosecution against Kamlesh Pattni, who it has since been established, was the architect of the multi-billion-shilling scandal.

Muite’s charisma and reputation as a fearless lawyer and his credentials as a national leader, illustrated by his decision to side with Jaramogi — seen as the face of the progressive forces — positioned him as a serious presidential contender in future.

But this image crumbled when in 1999 Pattni sensationally claimed that Muite had shaken him down for a bribe of Sh20 million in return for immunities in the Goldenberg scandal. When Muite denied the allegation, LSK under the leadership of Nzamba Kitonga constituted an independent probe of two senior members of the Society, Benjamin Okuom, and Philip Ransley, to look into the allegation.
The probe concluded that the payment of Sh15 million had been established.

This money was paid by several cheques in favour of third parties following Muite’s instructions. The panel found that the balance of Sh5 million allegedly paid in cash to Muite could not be substantiated.

These allegations were to prove a severe blow to Muite’s political standing. Although he went on to serve as MP for Kikuyu for three terms, it is considered that the substance of his national appeal was effectively shattered by the allegations.

Although Muite maintains his innocence up to today, the claims by Pattni have inflicted lasting damage on his stature and are viewed as a glass ceiling on his presidential ambitions.
After losing his seat in 2007, Muite went into a political wilderness, during which the only news about him was the two attempts by auctioneers to throw him out of his home, which was to be sold to recover a debt owed to a bank.

In an interview with the media, Muite did not dispute the debt but contended that the sale was orchestrated by President Kibaki and his wife Lucy as punishment for daring to oppose some of the President’s political actions.

Muite also accused the bank of bad faith in seeking to sell his home at a gross undervalue compared with the debt claimed.

It did not matter that the auctioneers were eventually unsuccessful in their attempts to sell Muite’s home. The spectacle on national television, of Muite’s household items, strewn all over his compound by the auctioneers who had been repulsed by Muite’s men, confirmed how far the great lawyer had fallen.


Thereafter, Muite ran for president on a Safina ticket, in last year’s General Election, positioning himself as a candidate who stood for principle, a reminder of the Muite of old. In his campaigns, he threw barbs at the two main contenders, Raila Odinga and Uhuru Kenyatta, who was declared the winner, and in the process reducing some of the polarising effect these two candidates had in the elections.

Analysts consider Muite’s decision to run a desperate attempt to remain relevant in greatly changed circumstances.

His historical position made it unseemly for him to run for his former seat of MP in Kikuyu which, moreover, he stood little chance of winning unless he aligned himself with the dominant TNA party in the area.

Muite’s otherwise irrelevant presidential candidature was given prominence by the debates that the media organised, initially among a select number of candidates, excluding him.

However, Muite obtained a court order that forced the media to accept him in the debate, and the occasion provided him the opportunity to display his considerable oratory skills bring his candidature some attention.

In March 2013, only days after the announcement of the results in the hotly disputed elections, Muite joined three other losing presidential candidates in a delegation that paid a courtesy call on Kenyatta, the President-elect. The other candidates in the delegation were James Kiyiapi, Musalia Mudavadi and Hussein Dida. Those who stayed away were Peter Kenneth, Martha Karua and Raila.

The timing was significant because the petition filed by Raila challenging the declaration of Kenyatta as the winner was then under way at the Supreme Court. The meeting was part of a series of activities carried out by the President-elect that were viewed as calculated to remove the sting from the electoral challenge he was facing in court by presenting his election as a fait accompli.

The meeting was seen as an endorsement of Kenyatta and undermined Raila’s petition.

Muite used the occasion to state that election petitions would not help the country and that he was ready to work with the government if the opportunity was offered to him.

The Malili ranch saga contains allegations against the current LSK chair Eric Mutua. The appointment of Muite to carry out the Malili probe places him in judgment over the leadership of the society that once carried out a probe against him after Pattni’s allegations.

One problem that Muite will confront when he probes Malili is why his results, especially if they implicate anybody, should be accepted by the parties when he rejected as false the results of the probe against him based on Pattni’s allegations.

Whatever the case, it looks like Muite is back in a big way and is now at the centre of national activities as he was in the 1990s. And, as always, controversy is never far behind him.


From: joachim omolo ouko
News Dispatch with Father Omolo Beste

Yuvinalis from Kisii writes: “Fr.Beste I read your article on Rose about her husband cheating on her and I just pity her. I worked in three major media houses in Kenya and during those days we did not have much to report on women divorcing or separating with their husbands because they cheat on them.

Strictly speaking, if you divorce your husband or wife because of extra marital affairs, in my opinion it is not right. It is the duty of husband and the wife to protect each other. They need to have dialogue.

I have seen many cases of wives or husbands cheating on each other, but what I can advice Rose and other women is that cheating on them should not be the reason for divorce or separation. There is no need of fighting each other, but better dialogue.

In most cases divorce is thought of as a solution because of lack of good communication which may lead to lack of understanding hence divorce. Rose has not divorced but I assure her that long period of separation may lead her to divorce.

If it persists seek the council of the parents or the small Christian community members. It is only when the other party completely refuses council from the elders that you could consider a divorce. I would also advice Rose and other women that it is not right to check their husbands’ phone or emails. Husbands should also not do the same to their wives.

I leave my phone in the sitting room when I go to the bedroom or the shower. I have big kids and I don’t mind them picking my phone. I don’t have any lockable item in my house. Hence all of us can access any items in the house. This is just to do with trust.

I should also advice men who cheat on their wives to stop doing so because this is just destroying your family and you”.

Thank you for your concern Yuvinalis. I hope Rose will follow your advice and have a change of heart. Your advice to men who cheat on their wives is fantastic. Remember this is not only Rose. The rate of divorce in Kenya on such illicit affairs is on the increase.

Filing a divorce case in court is even more expensive. Legal sources indicate that the cost of filing a divorce case could range from a minimum of Sh200, 000 to Sh500, 000, and the case could drag on in court for years.

A party seeking divorce is known as a petitioner while the one against whom the petition is filed is known as the respondent .The petitioner must illustrate or prove to the court why he or she wants the court to grant the divorce.

The party must prove that their case fits within one of the few grounds for divorce as stipulated in the law. For example, the petitioner has to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that a matrimonial offence has occurred, and hence the marriage should no longer continue.

Section 8 of the Matrimonial Causes Act provides divorce proceedings may be commenced either by the husband or the wife on the ground that the respondent:

(a) has since the celebration of the marriage committed adultery; or

(b) has deserted the petitioner without cause for a period of at least three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or

(c) has since the celebration of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty; or

(d) is incurably of unsound mind and has been continuously under care and treatment for a period of at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, and by the wife on the ground that her husband has been guilty of rape, sodomy or bestiality.

The court can also dissolve a marriage if parties show that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, and that there is no love between the parties anymore. These are the only grounds upon which parties can seek to have a marriage dissolved.

Kenyan law prohibits the presentation of a divorce petition to a court of law before three years after the marriage, unless good reasons are shown to the court as to why the petition should be entertained. Parties have to remain within the marriage for a minimum of three years before they lodge a divorce petition.

Like in the case of Rose she is still in a marriage, until the court will grants her a divorce. This is because separation does not break marriage. It is only divorce that breaks the matrimonial bond completely. In other words, she can be free to be remarried.

In Catholic Church this is quite different. Marriage in Catholic is a vocation which fosters the good of the spouses and naturally leads to the procreation and education of children. Above all marriage is a sacrament (Eph. 5).

The couple must understand what marriage is and they must intend their marriage to be a lifelong partnership which is open to children. They must intend fidelity and the mutual good of one another. They must also have the physical and psychological ability to follow through on these intentions.

When all of the above factors are brought together, a sacramental, indissoluble union is established by God. The Church believes that God, the author of marriage, established it as a permanent union. When two people marry, they form an unbreakable bond.

Divorce can only be considered on an annulment. It is a finding by a Church tribunal that on the day vows were exchanged at least one essential element for a valid marriage was lacking. For example, one of the parties did not intend to be faithful to the other party or approached marriage as merely a temporary bond.

A decree of nullity may also be considered on the grounds that one of the parties is incapable of entering into a valid marriage due to fear or coercion, a lack of judgment caused by mental illness or gross immaturity, a psychological disorder or the fact that one of the parties is still validly married to another party.

Fr Joachim Omolo Ouko, AJ
Tel +254 7350 14559/+254 722 623 578
Facebook-omolo beste


From: Cheekless 2011


Anti Money Laundering/Anti Terrorist Financing Stakeholders in Nigeria have faulted a statement credited to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) suggesting that Nigeria has been reconnected to the Egmont Secure Web (ESW).

Following an investigation, a coalition of Civil Society Organizations, under the aegis of Coalition to Stop Corruption in Nigeria, confirmed that Nigeria remains suspended from the Group’s Secure Web, pending the fulfillment of the Country’s obligations and promises to the international community.

National Coordinator of the group, Mr. Wahab Garuba, who expressed concerns over the development during a chat with our Correspondent, urged the EFCC to desist from further misinforming the populace.

According to him, “the problem is that the Commission is not telling President Jonathan the truth. EFCC must desist from distorting the facts. It must desist from misinforming Nigerians. We have seen the letter in question. Egmont Group neither exonerated the Mobile Police officers posted to the EFCC nor the EFCC and Mr. Ibrahim LARMORDE.

“It must be stated here that Egmont Group disconnected Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) from its secure web since November, 2013 because of non-compliance with international standards and the failure of EFCC to allow the NFIU to operate as an independent and operationally autonomous FIU as required,” he added.

Speaking further, he said the NFIU, as presently structured, lacked operational autonomy, adding that all those that had served as Directors of the NFIU, since its inception, were unceremoniously removed by EFCC under different guises.

“NFIU’s establishment as autonomous Unit has no legal backing. If NFIU has the required autonomy, when did the EFCC Chief of Staff, Mr. Kolawole Oladele become a spokesman of the Nigerian Police or that of the NFIU?” he queried.

Speaking further, he said the NFIU disconnection bordered on how EFCC managed the NFIU without allowing other law enforcement agencies to use intelligence information generated by NFIU to combat terrorism and financial crime.

“Again, if it was not on non-compliance issues, why did the Egmont Group in its latest memo recommend that a compliance review be undertaken on the NFIU in order to find out whether or not it meets the Group’s requirements? Why didn’t the fact-finding team recommend NFIU’s reconnection to the Egmont Secured Web if it has the operational autonomy to function and if the offending fact was on the so called Police invasion of NFIU?” he emphasized.

While disclosing that the EFCC was the only body opposed to the establishment of an operationally independent Financial Intelligence Center for Nigeria, out of over twenty law enforcement agencies, Garuba urged the EFCC to desist from what he described as sponsored media propaganda.

Send Emails to

Kujiondoa Tuma Email kwenda Utapata Email ya kudhibitisha ukishatuma


From: joachim omolo ouko
News Dispatch with Father Omolo Beste

Judy from Westlands, Nairobi writes: “Fr Beste you are a real journalist. Imagine I was not aware that Pope Francis appointed commission team to look into sex abuse by priests. Honestly I must admit that I am very ignorant. I didn’t even know that in USA there is a seminary for widowers and divorcees. Your news blog in an aye opener to many of us-please Beste continue with this noble apostolate.

Fr Beste, what do you think, with this commission can Pope allow priests to marry since sex abuse is becoming too much? I think this abuse can only stop when priests will be allowed to marry. They are human beings and need to be with wives like other men.”

Thank you for your sentiments Judy. Yes, Pope Francis in March this year appointed a team of 8 commissioners to confront an issue that has shaken the church for decades now. The team includes Marie Collins, who was sexually abused by a cleric in the 1960s and is a leading campaigner on the issue in Ireland.

Others are Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley, who spearheaded that city’s response to the problem. Poland’s former prime minister, a prominent British psychologist and an expert in canon law. The panel has only advisory power and cannot dictate to the pope what he must do even though he has been speaking about reform in the Roman Catholic Church.

The sexual-abuse scandal has cost the church billions of dollars in settlements with victims and hurt church attendance, particularly in the U.S. and Ireland, where the largest number of cases have emerged. In many cases, priests found to have abused children were moved from parish to parish rather than turned over to civil authorities.

Last month, a United Nations committee issued a harsh report criticizing the Holy See for allowing such priests to escape punishment. It said that tens of thousands of children around the world had suffered sexual abuse by priests.

According to the Vatican, the new committee will only consider guidelines on disciplining priests who have abused children, training new clerics to prevent future cases and caring for the victims of abuse and has got nothing to do with allowing priests to marry. Pope Francis has made clear that the church must hold the protection of minors amongst her highest priorities.

Sheila Hollins, a professor of psychiatry in the U.K. who has studied the problem and has participated in church-sponsored panels on the questions of child abuse, is a member, as is Father Humberto Miguel Yanez, a Jesuit priest who is a longtime associate of Pope Francis in Argentina and is a prominent theologian there.

P. Hans Zollner, a German national who is a licensed psychologist and is vice rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome as well as Claudio Papale, an expert in canon law, are members, as is French child psychologist Catherine Bonnet. With the new group, the pope has made it clear that this issue is a priority for him.

Judy, I don’t think sex abuse by clergy should be reason for allowing priests to marry. You have heard cases where married pastors abuse women sexually. Engaging in sex abuse is because somebody goes out and does it. It’s far more subtle than that. The seeds of adultery or fornication are planted in the mind of individuals.

That is why it did not matter whether you are married or not. People have affairs with married women or children because they have allowed themselves to consider it that way. That’s all. Some do it because they are addicted to sex.

They are in the state of behavior outside the boundaries of social norms which reduces an individual’s ability to function efficiently in general routine aspects of life or develop healthy relationships.

Fr Joachim Omolo Ouko, AJ
Tel +254 7350 14559/+254 722 623 578
Facebook-omolo beste