From: Judy Miriga
Folks,
Event results of political baggage’s share interests from debts incurred over illegal and unconstitutional projects that benefited Special Interest from loans taken on behalf of public and deficits created but did not serve public interest purpose…..who will pay the repercussion price of those failed or stalled projects etc.,……”ofcourse not the Public Taxpayer”…….If Public did not consent or participated from the initial feasibility planning in shared interest as stakeholders, the Players must prepare to bear the brunt…..Wata beba mizigo yao wenyewe….na wata jikaranga na mafuta yao wenyewe…..!!
This we will challenge and fight it out to the bitter end to make sure authorities responsible pay from their personal and the cartel connected accounts…….!!!!!!
Fair Legal justification from Supreme Court of Law must step in to uphold, protect, secure and restore public Trust and Confidence in jurisdictional valuables of PUBLIC RIGHTS obligated in Ways and Means for Dignity, Virtue and Value……..
Special investigation must be instituted immediately by Willy Mutunga……..
One point is fundamentally very clear…….Administrative governance through Red-Tape of Provincial Administration to Control Devolution of Counties establishment is illegal and unconstitutional…….whichever way Kibaki puts it, it is not Public Mandate Kibaki and Raila swore to respect, value and uphold…….Kibaki is seriously committing Economic THEFT and THUGGERY to collonize the People of Kenya illegally and uncontitutionally……..Kibaki has no jurisdictional rights to deny Kenyans Devolution of Counties free from control of Central Administrative Provincial Administration of DCs DOs contrary to the spirit of National Reform Agenda Accord Agreement for the New Constitution………..This is totally unacceptable and is a serious intentional Human Rights Violation and Abuse of consequential Economic Crime……..
Political baggages and sharing of the same amounts to a conspiracy of intent to Abuse, Violate and jointly colluding to committing Crime against Human Rights in shared Ways and Means……..liable to Legal Justification……..We Now Demand from Willy Mutunga’s urgent action…….
Cheers everybody……!!!
Judy Miriga
Diaspora Spokesperson
Executive Director
Confederation Council Foundation for Africa Inc.,
USA
http://socioeconomicforum50.blogspot.com
– – – – – – – – – – – –
Political baggage returns to haunt presidential aspirants
Published on 25/02/2012
By KEN-ARTHUR WEKESA
Political baggage on the backs of presidential hopefuls may change their dreams into nightmares.
The quest by Raila Odinga, Uhuru Kenyatta, Musalia Mudavadi, George Saitoti, William Ruto, Kalonzo Musyoka and Martha Karua may face turbulence over their previous political engagements.
As Prime Minister, Raila stands blamed for selectively fighting corruption, and this notion could weigh heavily on him.
“He will have a difficult time in explaining to the electorate why he defended his allies like Charity Ngilu and Mudavadi when they were mentioned in the water scandal and the cemetery scam,” says Ikolomani MP Bonny Khalwale.
Although the PM sought to clear his name in the Kazi kwa Vijana scandal, this is another baggage Raila has to grapple with.
Political disloyalty
Nominated MP Musikari Kombo observes Raila’s trait of disloyalty to political partners could also be his undoing.
“When Kijana Wamalwa democratically took over Ford- Kenya after the death of Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, Raila fought him viciously and withdrew his support,” he says.
Joseph Magut, a political scientist, says Railaphobia, especially among the Kikuyu, will definitely isolate him from the vote-rich Central regions, who feel a Raila regime will pursue vengeance against them.
On Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, Magut says the fact that the Gatundu South MP was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, means he may not be alive to the real issues facing wananchi and thus, may not even be entrusted to articulate or address them.
“His presidency will undeniably side with the elite and rubber stamp the status quo,” he says.
Larry Gumbe says Uhuru is seen as a continuation of an old order under his father whose presidency was laced with tribalism, land grabbing, and squatter problems.
Rogue regime
“Kenyans see Uhuru as a perpetuation of a rogue Kenyatta regime that created the Kiambu Mafia who isolated everyone and swore not to let the presidency cross River Chania,” Prof Gumbe says.
He says Uhuru’s alleged link to post-election violence that led to the killing of more than 1,200 people and his subsequent indictment by the International Criminal Court is a notable baggage. Deputy Prime Minister Musalia Mudavadi, according to analysts, is seen as an aspirant yet to extricate himself from the shadow of the Kanu era.
“He is not seen outside the sleuth of Moi who mentored own man,” says Gumbe.
Magut says Mudavadi is a soft and malleable character that explains why former President Moi picked him to be Vice-President when the Kanu boat was capsizing in 2002.
Musalia was dragged in the Sh68 billion shillings Goldernberg scandal in mid 1990s after taking over as Finance Minister. But has since been cleared of any wrongdoing in the scam.
He was also mentioned in the Sh283 million cemetery scandals that saw his Local Government PS Sammy Kirui fired. The DPM has since cleared his name.
In the recent times, Mudavadi’s bold and abrasive campaigns for the ODM presidential ticket has vindicated him from being the chocolate soldier, cute in uniform and boots and comfortable with playing second fiddle.
Court cases
Ikolomani MP Boni Khalwale says William Ruto is a classic example of a Moi ideological orphan. The Eldoret North MP was cleared by the courts in a case involving irregular allocation of Kenya Pipeline land worth Sh96 million. But the employment of a critical witness in the affair in the ministry he controlled has raised questions about the case.
Ruto has also been sued for allegedly grabbing land in Eldoret Municipality.
The case is expected to be resolved outside court, was reported early this month.
Although Ruto fought viciously to have his name cleared over the maize scandal, the Ikolomani legislator says Ruto still has an uphill task in persuading the electorate to endorse his bid.
“Whereas the courts cleared him, it is the court of public opinion that counts at the ballot,” he says.
The Eldoret North MP is seen as part of the architects of the YK’ 92 design that fought tooth and nail to retain the Kanu regime in power.
Besides, Ruto has been indicted by the ICC for crimes against humanity, mass murder, forcible transfer of population, and persecution.
Mwalimu Mati of Mars Group says the pending ICC proceedings against Uhuru and Ruto paints them as epitomes of violence.
Coming at a time Steadman released survey findings that 28 per cent of Kenyans fear violence will erupt if the two contest, Mati says such is the baggage the two will have to deal with.
“Besides the two, most aspirants have controversial records that spring from benefiting through graft to transparency and accountability issues,” he says.
Analysts also say Kalonzo has to burn the midnight oil if he has to log off the watermelon tag.
Playing to gallary
According to Khalwale, Kalonzo is an indecisive and inconsistent politician, known for playing to the gallery. He cites his conduct at the constitutional referendum where he was torn between a rock and a hard place.
“He wanted to please the Church and at the same time the President,” Khalwale adds.
Kalonzo critics also accuse him of casting the image of an Ukambani VP, not a national one, concentrating his energies in wedging political wars against Water Minister Charity Ngilu. Magut and Gumbe say Kalonzo is considered an opportunist, who has perfected the art of latching onto ready-made deals. This perception led G7 bigwigs into thinking twice about their association with him.
“He is seen as the proverbial hyena waiting for some hand to fall so as to grab and bite to his fill,” Magutt says.
Gumbe says: “Kalonzo’s politics is like that of Abunuasi, who runs with the hare and hunts with the hound.”
Though she has since reinvented herself politically after falling out with the Kibaki regime, Gichugu MP Martha Karua may be haunted by the ghosts of her past.
“As Justice Minister, she was on the wrong side in the 2005 referendum and took a hard line position on the controversial 2007 presidential election,” Gumbe says, adding this is a baggage Karua will not shed off easily.
Internal Security Minister George Saitoti’s bid may also be derailed by the adverse implication of his mention in the Goldernberg scam. He is seen as a continuation of Nyayoism.
Raphael Tuju of the Party of Action is seen as a paper tiger whose bid is slammed as a strategy to check Raila.
Kenya: Ethics And Anti Corruption Bill Published
By Oliver Mwenda, 15 July 2011
You will soon be required to account for your lifestyle and that of your family if recommendations contained in the Ethics and Anti corruption bill are passed into law.
This means state officers will be compelled to disclose to the Ethics and anti corruption commission how they afford their lifestyle taking into account their salary which may not be able to sustain it.
The commission shall also be involved in the vetting of all prospective state officers.
The bill has been forwarded to the attorney general by the CIC.
Mutula on Integrity and Ethics Bill
A new legislation that will make it harder for public officials and other leaders from the president to the members of parliament to flout the constitution as far as leadership and integrity is concerned, is expected to change the face of leadership in the country. The leadership and integrity bill which is still being prepared will punish corruption propagated by public servants with clearly spelt out penalties and make it harder for leaders to engage in such vices as nepotism while in office. Justice Minister Mutula Kilonzo is however worried that the bill may be mutilated when it comes up for debate in parliament. Abdi Osman with that report
Mutula on Integrity and Ethics Bill
Uploaded by kenyacitizentv on Feb 8, 2012
A new legislation that will make it harder for public officials and other leaders from the President to the Members of Parliament to flout the constitution as far as leadership and integrity is concerned, is expected to change the face of leadership in the country. The Leadership and Integrity Bill which is still being prepared will punish corruption propagated by public servants with clearly spelt out penalties and make it harder for leaders to engage in such vices as nepotism while in office. Justice Minister Mutula Kilonzo is however worried that the bill may be mutilated when it comes up for debate in parliament. Abdi Osman with that report.
Mutula: Change Act to give anti-graft body teeth
File | Nation Justice Minister Mutula Kilonzo
By ALPHONCE SHIUNDU ashiundu@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted Monday, February 13 2012 at 17:21
Justice Minister Mutula Kilonzo has lined up amendments to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act to ensure that the body gets the powers to prosecute the corrupt.
Speaking to the Nation on Monday shortly after meeting the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee at Nairobi’s Continental House, the Minister said the Act as had been passed by MPs was unconstitutional.
“The Constitution requires that the body should have the power to enforce and ensure compliance with the chapter on Leadership and Integrity. How then, can you enforce anything without the powers to issue sanctions and to punish? This commission must be given teeth to bite,” said the Justice Minister.
The powers to prosecute will be in addition to the investigatory powers that the EACC was accorded in the Act hurriedly passed by Parliament in August last year.
The Minister has also proposed an amendment obligating public officers to work with the commission and furnish it with periodic reports on integrity within their dockets.
“Ethics is not about law, morality or faith. It is a powerful tool of management,” said Mr Kilonzo.
Mr Kilonzo also proposes a maximum of Sh500,000 fine or a maximum two-year jail sentence for any public officer who fails to “co-operate with the commission”.
The Minister also proposes that the commission be given powers to come up with disciplinary procedures.
“The Bill that I took to Parliament was mutilated beyond belief. There were deletions and mutilations. As soon as MPs finish legislating on the seven Bills, I will go back to the House with the amendments and seek to give the EACC some teeth,” said the Justice Minister.
“The nominees to this commission were rejected because of lack of passion and drive; yet the law itself has no passion; no drive!” he said about the controversy surrounding the choice of Mr Mumo Matemu, Ms Irene Keino and Prof Jane Onsongo as commissioners to the EACC.
The trio were rejected by the House Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for lack of passion, drive and interest necessary to fight corruption in the country.
However, the House overturned the committee’s verdict. Their approval is pending before the House, with the Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka expected to table a fresh motion seeking MPs’ approval of the team.
When Parliament was debating the Bill, the MPs took their eyes off the intention of the Bill and were busy settling scores with the then director of the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission, Prof Patrick Lumumba, who had indicted many of them in the theft of public money.
The MPs thus made the law to ensure that the commission did not have any power to issue sanctions against them.
In a country in which impunity and corruption reside in the hands and hearts of the high and mighty, the reasons for having a team with no powers to issue sanctions was the safest bet for the lawmakers.
“The way they approved the law, made nonsense of the constitutional importance of such an organ,” said Mr Kilonzo.
That August, he had unsuccessfully lobbied his colleagues against using their legislative superiority to make laws that were not only unconstitutional but also meaningless, but his calls were not heeded.
Exercising Power Under Constitution
Tuesday, 17 January 2012 00:16 BY PROF YASH PAL GHAI
Recently the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa gave a decision in a case on the appointment of the DPP—remarkably similar to the Kenya case challenging the Tobiko appointment. We can learn much from the explanations and decision of the South African case. The qualifications for appointment, as in Kenya, emphasise integrity, experience and conscientiousness.
The appointment is solely by the President who must properly scrutinize the record of the candidates. President Zuma’s appointment of Simelane as the DPP was challenged by a major political party, the Democratic Party. Among the allegations made by the petitioner included “misleading and untruthful evidence” given to an official enquiry by Simelane, other instances when he lied, his conduct in a commission of enquiry, which was “intent on advertising itself, with no harm it might do to its suspects”, and the frequent questioning by the auditor-general of the accounts of his previous departments.
The petitioner argued that whether a candidate is a ‘fit and proper’ person of integrity etc has to be assessed objectively, taking into account that he or she must discharge professional duties without fear or favour. The President’s power, however classified, must be exercised lawfully. The president had made little effort to scrutinize Simelane’s record—read his cv and talked to the minister of justice (Simelane’s friend), and otherwise relied on his own knowledge of the candidate. The president’s appointment was described as “unlawful, irrational, arbitrary, biased, based on an ulterior motive and inconsistent with the Constitution”.
The court began its judgment with an examination, at some length, of the founding principles of the constitution which included democracy, rule of law, accountability, responsiveness and openness. Of the President (with powers similar to Kenya’s) the court said that “Ultimately the President, as the supreme upholder and protector of the Constitution, is its servant. Like all other organs of the state, the President is obliged to obey each and every one of its commands”—and dismissed the argument that as the elected representative of the law, he was above the law. It said that to ensure a functional democratic and accountable government, all state officials are required to exercise their powers in accordance with the constitution—shifting the government from “a culture of authority” to a “culture of justification”. It concluded that all institutions of state have to be independent and to serve the people without fear, favour or prejudice.
It then turned to the functions and powers of the DPP: to prosecute or to not, and to withdraw criminal charges, instigate or direct investigations (“awesome”, “central to the preservation of the rule of law”) which had to be “exercised with the utmost integrity”. Thus the staff engaged on prosecution must themselves be people “of integrity who will act without fear, favour or prejudice”. It then examined the rule and practice of the independence of prosecution authorities in a number of states—and its centrality to fair process and the rule of law. It emphasized the importance of the method of the appointment of the DPP—such as to gain the “confidence of the public and the respect of the judiciary and the legal profession”.
This independence is not undermined, rather it is strengthened, if the appointing procedure is itself subject to judicial scrutiny. The court quoted an eminent South African judge who spoke in terms that apply equally to Kenya, “ We moved from a past characterized by much that was arbitrary and unequal in the operation of the law to a present and a future in a Constitutional State where State action must be such that it is capable of being analysed and justified rationally. The idea of the constitutional state presupposes a system whose operation can be rationally tested against or in terms of the law. Arbitrariness, by its very nature, is dissonant with those core concepts of our new constitutional order”.
The court said that the requirement to act rationally, fairly and in accordance with the constitution and the law entails that the legislature and the executive “are constrained by the principle that they may exercise no power and perform no function beyond that conferred on them by law”. The court held that the President’s cannot bring his subjective assessment to the task of appointment, but must be objective. The expression is not “in view of the President” but the requirement is imperative. Anyway it is hard to see how one can assess integrity other than objectively. In conclusion the court said that the qualifications for the office are “jurisdictional facts the objective existence of which are a prelude to the appointment of the DPP”.
These considerations must also apply in Kenya, to the panel which nominated a short list, to the Principals who chose and forwarded the candidate to the National Assembly, and the National Assembly which approved the candidate. If at any stage the process was contaminated by irrelevant considerations like horse trading, protecting powerful interests from the rigours of investigations or prosecutorial process, or favouritism ensuing from tribal or other affiliations, the process is faulty and the appointment is invalid (as was declared by the South African court). These principles of course apply not only to appointments of state officers, but the exercise of a whole gamut of state powers. The challenge to us is how to translate these concepts and rules into practice.
The author is a director of the Katiba Institute.