Blog Page 322

SAUDI TO SUPPORT KENYA’S DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS.

0
President Uhuru Kenyatta with Saudi Aribia government official at Statehouse Nairobi /FILE PHOTO.

BY NT CORRESPONDENT.

SAUDI Arabia has indicated it will fully commit to support Kenya’s development projects as well address emerging issues in trade and work relations.

Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Dr Mohammed Al Khayat said his country will support development projects directly through the Islamic Development Bank , (IDB) and the Saudi Fund for Development.

Kenya and Saudi Arabia enjoy warm and cordial relations spanning several decades. One of the thorny issues between the two countries was the finalizing of a labour agreement between them to guide on the recruitment of domestic workers in Saudi Arabia.

However the agreement according to the ambassador is on its final stages of implementation.

Dr. Mohammed made the remarks at a Nairobi Hotel during celebrations to mark the 87th anniversary of the unification of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Tourism Cabinet Secretary Najib Balala who was present at the event assured the diplomats that there is no cause for alarm over repeat of presidential poll slated for October 26 ,and urged them to invest in the country.

AUKOT GOES TO HIGH COURT IN BALLOT PAPERS BID.

0
Lead counsel for presidential candidate EkuroAukot Elias Mutuma (right) together with lawyer Ignitias Muhati outside Milimani Law court after filing a petition seeking to halt IEBC decision that left him out Presidential election slated for 26 September 2017/PHOTO BY S.A.N.

BY CORRESPONDENT.

Thirdway Alliance Party Presidential candidate Dr Ekuru Aukoti is now seeking orders to halt  Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission from Printing Ballot Papers for Presidential election slated for 26 September 2017.

Chief Justice David Maraga on Wednesday directed Dr Ekuru Aukot to go back to the High Court for an interpretation on whether he can run in the repeat presidential election.

Aukot filed a case protesting exclusion from the poll after the Electra commission said only Jubilee’s President Uhuru Kenyatta and NASA’s Raila Odinga will be on the ballot.

He said he has the constitutional right to participate in the fresh presidential election having been a contender in the August 8 general election.

He says  that  the  IEBC has not included nor gazetted  his name has one of Presidential candidate to contest along side President Uhuru Kenyatta ( Jubilee Party) and Raila Odinga of NASA.

Dr Aukoti through lawyer Elias Mutuma, says that the  commission Chairman Wafula Chebukati has caused the names of Uhuru and Raila to be   published in  Kenya gazette dated 5 September 2017 has  the only Presidential Candidates for  the fresh  election announced by the Supreme Court on 1 September 2017.

He wants the  petition be heard expeditiously due to time constraints.

The lawyer said that IEBC Chairman has ignored the provision of the Constitution and clearly acted in bad faith.

He said that the petitioner was nominated by his  Party and  did participate in 8 August 2017 general election in  which  election Uhuru  was elected as the President, the result were later  annulled by the Supreme Ccourt.

On Wednesday, Chief Justice David Maraga dismissed a petition seeking orders for Aukot’s inclusion in the ballot for the October 26 repeat poll.

In a short ruling, Mr Maraga found that the Supreme Court did not have powers to hear the Third way Alliance leader’s case.

His decision means that the repeat race will be between President Uhuru Kenyatta and National Super Alliance candidate Raila Odinga.

AUKO FREED OF PROBE.

0
Auditor General Edward Ouko.

 

BY SAM ALFAN.

High court set aside proceedings conducted against Auditor General Edward Ouko says the conduct by the finance department failed to meet the threshold of fair administrative action.

“I declare that the proceedings by the said departmental committee on finance ,planning and trade against Edward Auko failed to meet the threshold of fair administrative action” ruled Odunga.

However the court declined to quash the decision by the speaker of the National Assembly and departmental Commitee on Finance and trade to probe Ouko.

According to judge Odunga, “the right to cross examine a person is important as that of a right to a fair hearing,”.

” I declare that the departmental committee on finance ,planning and trade is bound to conduct it proceedings in strict compliance to Article 47 of the constitution and provisions of the fair administrative Act particularly section 4″ Declared Odunga J.

He added that where a constitutional body has made a mistake the court has a constitutional mandate to bring it back to track.

However, the court gave the parliamentary committee the green light to probe the Auditor general afresh but to do so within the confines of the law.

March 13 this year, high court restrained National Assembly from proceeding with the debate seeking the removal of auditor general Edward Ouko pending hearing hearing and determination of the case challenging decision to aust the auditor general.

“That in the meantime conservatory orders are hereby restraining the committee of the National Assembly seized of the petition filed against interested party herein-Edward Auko from further proceeding with that petition pending hearing and determination of this petition ” Judge ordered.

In the case the speaker of National Assembly Justin Muturi has also been barred from forwarding any resolution of the National Assembly to President Uhuru Kenyatta.

“That for avoidance of doubt the respondents(National Assembly and Attorney General) should not act on any recommendations made by responsible Committee of Parliament namely, the Finance Planning and Trade Committee of the National Assembly, until the court determines the petition before it” Court further ordered Parliament.

Activist Okiya Omutata filed a suit saying that the process of removing Auditor General from office removal is unlawful and unfair as it denies him fair administrative action and access to information.

High Court judge George Odunga had declined to block the parliamentary committee from investigating Ouko and sent the file to Mwita.

At the same time Ouko filed a suit seeking to quash the decision of the Speaker of the National Assembly Justin Muturi and House Clerk Michael Sialai to commit a petition seeking his removal before a parliamentary departmental committee.

Through his lawyer, Otiende Amollo, the auditor General Edward Ouko wants the court to bar National Assembly from debating ouster petition lodged by Nairobi Lawyer Emmanuel Mwagonah over alleged abuse of office.

“The committee failed to give the applicant prior notice of when and where the accuser would appear, “he argues He further says that given the malicious nature, the unprecedented fast tracking and the unfair manner that the process was undertaken he is apprehensive that the process will irreparably violate his fundamental rights and freedoms as guaranteed under the constitution. “It is of utmost suspicion on how the petition to remove the applicant was fast tracked,” part of  the petition said.

Ouko argued that parliament in admitting and committing the petition to the Departmental Committee on Finance, planning and Trade for hearing, fundamentally flouted procedural fairness.

He saif that he was compelled to face allegations by an accuser even when there were no supporting documents. Other orders that the embattled auditor general is seeking is a declaration that the process of removing him from office is unlawful.

Auditor-General Edward Ouko appeared before a parliamentary committee to challenge a petition seeking his removal from office. In the petition before parliament Emmanuel Mwagambo Mwagonah has accused Ouko of wasting public funds by accumulating a 1 million Shillings phone bill on his iPad while he was abroad.

He claimed Ouko frequently travelled out of the country for private reasons and has been managing the office remotely, resulting in high telephone and Internet costs.

COUNTY OFFICIALS BUSTED WITH SH7 MILLION BY NAIROBI GOVERNOR SONKO DENIED AMNESTY.

0
Seven Nairobi County Government officials Reuben Gachukia, Luke Gatimu, Maurice Ochieng, Nixon Awuor, Shaban Asman, Bedan Wambui and Chrispin Oyiro before a Nairobi Court on Wednesday August 30,2017/PHOTO BY S.A.N.

 

BY SAM ALFAN.

Officials arrested with Sh7 million at Nairobi County Government will be charged, court says.

The officials had moved to court seeking to halt a criminal case lobbed against them.

The High Court declined to issue the orders they sought saying that they must face the law.

They argued that the criminal case against them is an abuse of court process and infringes their fundamental rights.

Justice John Mativo directed the petitioner’s in the case to serve the respondents in the case.

They claim that the investigations are grounded on illegal act thus rendering any prosecution as being based on an illegal act.

‘Our substantive motion application seeks to enforce our fundamental rights and stay any further investigations by the 1st respondests and 2nd respondents against us with regards to the events of the 23rdAugust 2017,’’argues the petitioners.

According to documents from city Hall , the charged officials had banked 532.1 million but only receipted amount was 240.5 million.

The five accused Perons claim that the intended charges of abuse of office against them is grounded on a series of events at the Nairobi Governors cash office on the 23rd of August in which persons not know to them and not employees of Nairobi County

The seven officials were charged in court after they were found were found in possession the said money in their offices, which ought to have been deposited by close of business on August 22.

They are Reuben Gachukia, Luke Gatimu, Maurice Ochieng, Nixon Awuor, Shaban Asman, Bedan Wambui and Chrispin Oyiro.

They are accused of abuse of office being chief cashier, finance officer, head of treasury head of revenue, in-charge of bank reconciliations and assistant cashier respectively.

The matter will be mentioned on 2 October for further directions.

KENYA FOOTBALL FEDERATION BOSS NICK MWENDWA MUST CEASE INTERFERING WITH LOCAL PREMIER LEAGUE.

0
veteran soccer president Sam Nyamweya.

 

BY SAM ALFAN.

Kenya Premier League should have a maximum of 16 teams during the 2017 seasons, the court has said.

The court has further said that the league should consist 14 KPL teams which qualified for sporting merit on the field during 2016 seasons plus 3 highest ranked clubs at the end of the 2016 seasons in FKF national super league.

The introduction and adoption of the FKF club lincesing regulations at FKF AGM, it said, was irregular and therefore null and void.

Justice John Mativo said that the unilateral post season regulations/promotion and addition of clubs by Nick Mwendwa violated the agreement and also the sporting principle of merit and therefore null and void.

Meanwhile Nick Mwendwa has been stopped from interfering with the KPL rights to manage and own the KPL during the period of the said agreement.

In the case Former Football Kenya Federation President Sam Nyamweya moved to court against FKF and Sports Disputes Tribunal to court over the country’s league.

Nyamweya accused FKF President Nick Mwendwa and his CEO Robert Muthomi for wanting to manage KPL, a league he says is a preserve of Kenyan Premier League Limited.

Judgement affirms and a is a major boost to Sofapaka who had been “relegated” under CAF licensing rules but currently lie 2nd on the log with 42 points only 9 points behind current league leaders Gor Mahia.

Veteran soccer President  Sam Nyamweya has sued the Football Kenya Federation (FKF) leadership over its irregular expansion of the Kenya Premier League (KPL) and the haphazard relegation and promotion of teams.

Nyamweya want the High Court to slap an injunction against the FKF from interfering with the management of the KPL and to respect the mutual agreement signed by the two parties restricting 16 teams to participate in the annual soccer bonanza.

Nyamweya, who retired from the FKF presidency last year to usher the new team led by Nick Mwendwa, protested that violation of the binding agreement was likely to provoke a ban on Kenya’s participation in the sport by the world soccer governing body FIFA. Kenya may miss out on bidding to host the Continental African Nations Cup (CHAN) following the wrangles between FKF and KPL management, he said.

According to the FKF-KPL pact, only 16 teams can play during the 2017 season, comprising 14 teams that qualified on the field during the 2016 season and the two highest-ranked clubs at the end of the 2016 season in the FKF’s National Supper League.

The former FKF President said the Mwendwa group had unilaterally expanded the KPL to 18 teams for the current season.

They had breached Article 1.2(g) of the FKF-KPL agreement that categorically states that any proposals for the relegation or promotion of clubs must be reviewed and agreed upon at least one season prior to implementation, he said in court papers.

Nyamweya said Mwendwa and his associates had disobeyed sanctions by the Sports Dispute Tribunal, which gave orders on October 14, last year, restraining them from interfering with KPL affairs or discussing expansion of the participating clubs. The following day, the FKF leadership discussed and approved Club Licensing Regulations, which gave room for expansion of the league without consultations with all stakeholders, he said

KARUA DENIES ICC LINK.

0
Narc Kenya Party leader Martha Karua testifying in case which she has sued Muses Kuria for defamation on Wednesday September 20,2017/PHOTO BY S.A.N.
BY SAM ALFAN

Narc Kenya Party leader Martha Karua has denied allegations by Gatundu South MP Moses Kuria that she falsely procured witnesses to fix deputy president William Ruto before ICC.

While testifying in court today, she denied meeting any officers from ICC  who came to Kenya to investigating the happening of post election violence in the country in the 2007/2008 after a disputed general elections.

But she confirmed attending a fundraising held at Gallileo that was attended by the current president Uhuru Kenyatta which was to raise money for victims of post election violence.

The former Justice Minister said she has never met or interacted with Moses Kuria personally and he first heard of him when he was summoned by the National cohesion and Integration Commission.

Senior Counsel Gitobu Imanyara ,Narc Kenya Party leader Martha Karua (centre) and Naomi Wanja consulting before Ms Karua testified before justice Sergon on Wednesday September 20,2017/PHOTO BY S.A.N.
Senior Counsel Gitobu Imanyara ,Narc Kenya Party leader Martha Karua (centre) and Naomi Wanja consulting before Ms Karua testified before justice Sergon on Wednesday September 20,2017/PHOTO BY S.A.N.

She told Justice Joseph  Sergon she was shocked while watching news at 9:00 P.M on Sunday 20 September ,2015 to hear  Moses Kuria mention her name to the effect that she met him together with others and drafted a letter to the international Criminal Court implicating deputy president William Ruto for crimes against humanity .

She said upon watching Kuria making the scandalous and malicious statement against her, she called lawyer Gitobu Imanyara to seek legal advice.

“I called my lawyer Gitobu Imanyara with view of seeking his advice on Mr.Kuria’s statement which I deemed to be highly libelous, defamatory, scandalous and were geared to portray me as a corrupt individual who bribed people to masquerade as witnesses against the deputy president” Karua told the Court.

The Narc Kenya Party leader strongly denied any involved in any act acts that were geared towards recruiting and coaching of persons to testify against William Ruto, neither did she author any letter , by herself of jointly with Kuria as he alleged.

Despite demanding Mr Kuria to retract and apologize, the MP went ahead and issued a press statement from parliament building in which he reiterated what he had said during the political meeting that had been disyuised as a prayer meeting for deputy president  william Ruto.

She said the legislator continued making the same malicious statement against her which was widely published both locally and internationally in the print which is injurious to her reputation globally.

Narc Kenya Party leader sued MP Moses Kuria through his lawyer Senior Counsel Gitobu Imanyara over remarks he made in a political rally linking her to witness soliciting in order to fix the Deputy President at the ICC.

The Narc Kenya leader said that on the evening of Sunday, she was shocked to hear her name being adversely mentioned by the MP at a Prayer meeting held at Kapsikwony, Bungoma County.

Mr Kuria said that, he with others and Ms Karua were involved in drafting a letter that was sent to the International Criminal Court implicating the Deputy President for Crimes against Humanity.

She in response contacted her lawyer Gitobu Imanyara who was of the opinion that Mr Kuria’s words were defamatory, libelous and actionable. Similarly, she held a press conference at her NARC KENYA offices where she demanded an apology from the MP.

She said that instead of apologizing, Mr Kuria held a press conference at Parliament buildings where he reiterated the same words he had spoken at Kapsikwony.

“In addition, he stated that I met him together with others at Club Galileo in Westlands where we devised a scheme to recruit witnesses against the Deputy President for the case against him,” Ms Karua said.

Following the disputed General Elections of December 2007, the ensuing Post Election Violence in 2007/2008 and mediation efforts led by Mr. Kofi Annan, Ms Karua was appointed Justice and Constitutional Affairs minister.

She would, in her stature as minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs, extensively interact with the various efforts and commissions involved in investigating the events of the Post-Election Violence, the Victims of the said Post Election violence as well as investigators from the International Criminal Court as Government of Kenya representative.

Ms Karua stated that Kuria’s statements have highly injured her reputation implying that she was not a diligent and trustworthy public servant as a Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs and that she was involved in bribing people to testify against the Deputy President.

“Unless the Defendant is compelled by this Honorable Court to cease from maligning my name and further injuring my reputation, I stand to suffer irreparable harm from his reckless and unwarranted attack on my integrity on grounds which he cannot substantiate,” the Narc Kenya chair said.

Lawyer Imanyara in the same light said that the words were calculated to paint the Ms Karua in negative light as the person behind the Criminal Case against the Deputy President, which words were scandalous, malicious, unwarranted and defamatory in the extreme.

He said that the words implied that Ms Karua had a corrupt interest in the ongoing cases at the ICC and had obtained corrupt benefits or advantages during her tenure as a Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs.

The lawyer also said that Mr Kuria implied that, “The plaintiff was a part of a criminal enterprise gang comprising of among others, the Defendant whose principal purpose was to interfere with the administration of justice at the ICC in breach of the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Kenyan penal laws.”

Mr Imanyara also cautioned the court that pending the hearing and determination of the suit, Gatundu south MP should be restrained from issuing any statement on any media platform that pertains to the Applicant and her reputation, or in any manner from mentioning the Ms Karua’s name in any forum as would be defamatory, libelous and injurious to her reputation.

“Today I want to state it as it is. Whoever gets annoyed is his problem. When we had election violence in Kenya we had PNU and ODM. Each party was seeking victory. I was in PNU with MP Serut. All of us rushed to the ICC… I was part of the team that wrote a letter to the International Criminal Court and this was political theatrics and we need to tell Kenyans the truth…. I am ready to call on Martha Karua…come and tell us that this was only a political game…”

Judgment date to be fixed.

KENYA SUPREME COURT COURT NIXED POLL BECAUSE IT COULDN’T SEE DATA.

0
Supreme Court Judges./PHOTO BY S.A.N.

BY The Associated Press.

NAIROBI, Kenya — Kenya’s Supreme Court said Wednesday it nullified President Uhuru Kenyatta’s re-election largely because the electoral commission refused scrutiny of its computerized voting system.

The court judges said because the electoral commission refused to allow scrutiny of its computer servers it had no option but to agree with the claim by Kenya’s opposition leader Raila Odinga that the computerized data of the August presidential elections had been interfered with.

The court annulled President Uhuru Kenyatta’s re-election earlier this month saying there were irregularities and illegalities. It made the decision in response to Odinga’s petition challenging the official results that Kenyatta won with 54 percent of the vote. The electoral commission has set Oct. 17 as the date for a fresh election.

Explaining why it annulled Kenyatta’s win, the Supreme Court said its order to view the computerized data was “a golden opportunity” for the electoral commission to present evidence to debunk Odinga’s claim of interference.

“IEBC’s contumacious disobedience of this order … in critical areas leaves us with no option but to accept the petitioner’s (Odinga’s) claims that the IEBC IT system was infiltrated and the data therein interfered with or IEBC officials interfered with the data or simply refused to accept that it had bungled the whole transmission system and was unable to verify the data,” said Justice Philomena Mwilu, who read part of the judgment.

The electoral commission also failed to implement verification measures required by law and the constitution to ensure the election was credible, said the judgment. The electoral commission announced the winner of the presidential election even though it was missing thousands of scanned copies of forms used to compile the presidential results at the constituency, said the judgment. Those measures were ordered by the court of appeal last year to enhance accountability and reduce incidences of electoral fraud.

The presidential results announced on August 11 were based on forms which were not the primary document that the law says should be used to compile presidential elections results and some of those forms were of “dubious authenticity,” said the judgment.

“For the above reasons we find the 2017 presidential election was not conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the constitution and the written law of election in that it was … neither transparent nor verifiable. On that ground alone … we have no choice but nullify it,” said the judgment.

Outside the court room, Kenya’s police tear gassed opposition and ruling party supporters who had gathered outside the Supreme Court and started jeering and pushing each other, threatening violence, said a witness. Cyrus Okemwa, who was among the opposition supporters, said a swarm of bees first attacked the demonstrators followed by police tear gas.

“There was push between or among the supporters outside the court and all over a sudden bees attacked and tear gas came from police,” Okemwa said.

Kenya’s Chief Justice David Maraga said Tuesday that since the September 1 judgment nullifying the election results, there have been attempts to intimidate judges. Kenyatta has called the Supreme Court judges “crooks” and warned of unspecified action against the judiciary if he is re-elected next month.

TRUTHS AND DECEPTIONS ABOUT THE REPEAT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

0
President Uhuru Kenyatta lawyers Ahmednasir Abdullahi with Fred Ngatia at supreme court on 28 August 2017/PHOTO BY S.A.N.

BY THOMAS KARIUKI.

The IEBC should conduct fresh elections with strict adherence to the principles and regulations set out in the constitution; this is not a request but an order by the Supreme Court of Kenya.

Now, if it is an order then, what role should IEBC, political parties with their preferred candidates and key election stakeholders’ play? Allow me to answer this question in four ways.

1. Whose exercise is it?

The constitution derives its power from the people and the people derive their power from the constitution. This is to say that the variables are interdependent on each other; the constitution represents the sovereign will of the people and the sovereign will of the people is represented by the constitution.

This is through binding, documented and outlined plans, processes, freedoms, limitations and laws. Therefore, the election slated for October 17 2017 is the sovereign will of the people as documented in the constitution.

It paramount to understand that holding an election is an exercise that has been mandated to the IEBC by the people of Kenya in their sovereign will that is the constitution. So, the people of Kenya are supreme and thus this exercise belongs to Kenyans not what politicians have made the people to believe that it is all about them. I reiterate, the exercise belongs to Kenyans and IEBC is the mandated body, hence should follow to the latter all that is outlined in the constitution.

2. Who should handle the exercise?

Allow me to take you back to the sovereign will of the Kenyan people that is the constitution. The constitution states in uncertain terms that the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission is the only body mandated to conduct elections in Kenya.

There have been calls for the UN to come in and help Kenya hold its elections. On the UN Electoral Assistance portal most of its (UN) work is focused on technical assistance to national authorities administering elections which involves offering security, technical advice on the reform of electoral laws and the establishment of procedures to ensure the vote is safeguarded, logistical support such as distribution of ballot materials and public information and voter education assistance. One of the factors that precipitate this occurrence is civil war which is not the case in Kenya. Example of a country that the UN helped conduct election is the South Sudan.

Kenya is not in conflict, but is having parties with diverse opinions on whom or what should be done to ensure a true representation of its sovereign will. As earlier alluded to, the Supreme Court order was binding to all parties.

It ordered that the 1st respondent in the case- the IEBC should hold fresh polls in accordance with the stipulated laws and regulations within 60 days. It can thus be interpreted that the court asserts the power of conducting elections on the IEBC and as such no other body should conduct elections. So, the IEBC should conduct fresh elections unless otherwise stated in the express order of the Supreme Court.

3. What guides the exercise?

The exercise of conducting elections is a mandate bestowed on the IEBC. The constitution, the Electoral ACT, legislations, regulations must guide the process.

The exercise is made up of processes before, during and after elections. The IEBC is the only body mandated with management of the whole election exercise. Structured talks, agreements, stakeholder involvement can only fortify what the constitution expressly states not adding, subtracting or removing anything on the constitution. This can only be possible if there are willing and good will participants. No chest thumping can alienate this role from IEBC.

4. What is the role of participants?

Allow me to categorize all participants in the election this way.

A) The candidates.

These are the people directly involved in the election; the people who will run for the Presidential office on October 17 2017, them being President Uhuru Kenyatta with his running mate Deputy President

William Ruto and Mr Raila Odinga with his running mate Kalonzo Musyoka and lest you leave out their respective parties.

UhuRuto with their battalion have opted to take the spectator role in demanding for electoral reforms. Deputy President in his address to the media after a meeting with IEBC at the Anniversary Towers Headquarters in Nairobi said that IEBC should be allowed to handle the election without interference. He also called on the opposition to give the IEBC time to carry out its duty.

The opposition on the other hand has taken an active role in demanding changes in the electoral body. In their rallies, they have called out on specific officers not to participate in the election. They say that if their demands are not met then they will not boycott the election but there will be no election.

What should IEBC do?

This role played by both parties border on the independence of the commission and the judgment of the Supreme Court. Without the judgment, IEBC may not know which laws they never followed. It is not about illegalities that NASA petition outlined but the laws that IEBC forfeited.

According to the brief decision of the court, Chief Justice pronounced that the law was not followed and as such nullified the election. This is to say that the decision was not on the basis of the allegations held by NASA but specific laws that were not considered or overlooked. This is the reason why the court found no culpability on the third respondent President Kenyatta.

B) ‘Other’ stakeholders.

Other election stakeholders are mandated to offer advice, observe the credibility, transparency of the exercise and offer unfettered assistance when called upon. They include accredited observers, foreign missions, the church, civil society and the government.

C) A Kenyan voter.

At the heart of every election is the decision of the voter. This decision is exercised through voting- the ballot, the counting and announcement of the results at the polling station. Technology is used for transmission of results, the results announced at the polling station by presiding officers in the presence of party agents.

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ASKS COURT TO OVERTURN ITS DECISION.

0
Supreme Court Judges./PHOTO BY S.A.N.

BY SAM ALFAN

Independent Presidential candidate in the August 8th election Mr Michael Wainaina Mwaura has moved to the Supreme court seeking to vacate its order and majority judgment nullifying the victory of President Uhuru Kenyatta.

In his petition Mwaura claims that the damning report published by a local newspaper today has negatively implicated the entire decision by the majority judges of the Supreme Court.

“The entire integrity of the majority decision arising from allegations of impropriety, possible corruption and violation of judicial code of ethics by two of the judges Namely Justice Isaac Leonaola and DCJ Philomena Mwilu who sat to hear the petition as part of the Supreme Court bench,” he said.

The petitioner also claims that the net effect of the impropriety complained of is that the hearing of the petition by NASA was entire sham, a violation of the constitution as the outcome has been be pre determined and the hearing consequential were mere theatrics intended cloak the improper decision with legality.

He says that the integrity of the supreme court in determining the petition and upholding the principles of rule of law, justice transparency, good governance, impartiality, patriotism and Fairless has fallen into a great doubt arising from imputations of impropriety on the part of the said two judges.

“”Pursuant to Article 10(2)(c) and Article 258(1) of the Constitution, the Applicant challenges the lawfulness, propriety, integrity, and fairness of the consequential MAJORITY Judgement of this Honourable Court determined by the majority in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, on 1st September 2017, against the backdrop of the stated improprieties” Wainaina says in the petition.

Wainaina also claims that the judicial policy espoused in article 159(2) (a) of the constitution says that justice shall be done to all, emboundying the equal principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.

Through lawyer Harisson Kinyanjui the application says that the principle that justice must not be only be done but also be seen be done was irredeemably infringed upon the recent disclosure of the impropriety interaction between the two judges with the stated emissaries of the IEBC and the President prior to the delivery of the impeach decision, touching on abuse of office, unfairness, corruption allegations which apparently were sorely for purpose of influencing the out come  which was ruled on the favour of the Raila Odinga.

He says imputations of corrupt and unlawful interactions with the two judges with the petitioners  and report in a daily local newspaper yesterday in order to influence the outcome of the presidential petition in favour of Raila lends the impression that justice before supreme court was peddled for corruption and undue influence and for sale and was sold to Hon  Raila Odinga.

The impugned decision carried the contribution of justice leonaola and DCJ Mwilu which unfairly regarded the applicat case under consideration the real danger prejudice, gross miscarriage of justice by the rest of the judges who formed a majority decision, hence the judgment ought to have been vacated,” Wainaina says in the petition.

He says that the matter is of grave public importance touching on the adminstration of justice and is involving an election in which over 15milion Kenyans stood in open, queued and cast their votes to elect their presidential candidate including the him.

In the face if two petitions filed with the Judicial Service Commission in regard to the gross misconduct of the two judges of impropriety and inducement from Raila to promote assist and aid in the rendering of a favourable decision by majority of supreme court in regard to Raila the appearance of bias hovered, and now remain undischarged over the entire decision.

He says that in the raising circumstances, there was no fair trial of the presidential petition before the supreme court since there was violation of the constitution, and if there was fairness ,Justice has not been seen at all.

He says that he was shocked to see the said allegations against the two judges in public domain as contained in the two petitions filed with JSC.

TRADER CHARGED OVER 17 MILLION BOUNCED CHEQUE.

0
Nairobi businessman Muzamil Abdul Gafoor before a Nairobi Court on Monday September 18,2017/PHOTO BY CHRIS OJOW.

A Nairobi businessman has been charged for issuing a bad cheque worth 17million shillings .

Muzamil Abdul Gafoor is accused that on diverse dates between the 2 day of November  2015 and 24 December 2015 at Multitrade Industrial Supplies Limited’s offices in Nairobi in incurring a debt from Prime Steel Mills Limited, obtained credit to the amount of Kshs 17,744,600 from the Prime Steel Mills Limited by pretending that he was in a position to pay for twisted bars supplied to him by the said Prime Steel Mills Limited.

He is facing another count obtaining credit by false.

It is also alleged on 30 of November 2016 at Cooperative Bank of Kenya Mombasa road Branch in Nairobi issued a bad cheque for Kshs 990,000 in favor of Prime Steel Mills Limited drawn on Multitrade Industrial supplies having previously instructed the said bank not to honour the cheque.

He pleaded not guilty to three counts and was released on a cash bail of 500,000 shillings.

The criminal trial against him will heard next year.