MARENDE'S RULLINGS WERE TOTALLY ABSURD
It was always expected considering that a monkey can never be a fair arbiter in the affairs of the forest,but even then it must be done with some semblance of professional honesty and decorum.This did not happen and that is why i must say that the ruling not only stinks but reeks.
When the entire episode begun in the house the speaker referred it to the committees,subsequently his party members bought the issue back to him to make a ruling on the issue of subjudice and he held that parliament could not be debarred and i have no qualm with that interpretation.The committees then went on with their work only for political activists to call a press conference to allege that the speaker had been threatened.It is imperative to note that the speaker confirmed that he had actually received threats,but he never made a complaint to the police nor make a communication from the house,.This activists were witnesses in the committee,what they wanted done on the issue of the appointments was a matter of public notoriety ,so the question that begs for an answer is why Ceaser's wife sought to consort in privacy with the very people who represented a competing opinion before him while the matter was pending his own adjudication?Was the benchmark of beyond suspicion and reproach and not only to be independent but be seen to be independent met?Its imperative to note that millie adhiambo ,and oluoch olago were to replicate the same claims about their own selves while trying to rope in martha karua who promptly denied receiving any threats.The story line from the speakers party was similar to his all through,was this coincident?
After that,the legal affairs committee could not beat the deadline on the presentation of its report and his ruling or rather directions were curious as he said the committee should present a report whether its a one sentence report,a majority report or a minority report,.This went contrary to the practice and procedure in the commonwealth where issues are determined on the basis of a majority vote in the committees and in parliament.It may have been made casually done but the speaker set a dangerous precedent which shall make committee work very difficult as he in essence gave the membership for every member to come up with his own report,hence the embarrassment of the committees coming up with conflicting reports
Then now we come to the last ruling by the speaker which was full of contradiction that am surprised that anyone would propose the speaker for the supreme court.The only other judgment i can equate Marende's ruling to is the judgment by Hon Tuiyot in the Koigi Wamwere robbery with violence case and the judgments by the High court and Court of Appeal in the notorious Goldenberg cases.These are judgments that were tailor made for specific reasons with a particulars person or outcome in mind.They thus always violated precedent and were contradictory .My reasons for these are as here below:
1)The speaker explained that he could not make a ruling on this issue the first time it came to the house because there was no motion before him for him to rule so he referred the matter to the committees to bring a motion.Funny enough even as he made his ruling yesterday he had stopped the house business committee from bringing a motion on the issues at hand to the house so that no motion was moved to enable him make a ruling.
THIS was an affront to the rules of natural justice and the standing orders of the house more-so considering the members right to contribute was taken away.
2)The speaker prevaricated on this issue in the false belief that his party had numbers in the committee but when he discovered they were overwhelmed he changed goal posts and ruled that the constitutional issues could not be determined by numbers or voting.To me this was an aberration because even in court constitutional issues are determined by a vote of the judges ie split bench,
3)THE speaker held that the committee reports could not be tabled and be discussed.This begs for the question why did he waste precious time referring the matter to the committees,and at what point along the way did he experience a Saul on the way to Damascus and become a Paul on the issue.He thus went ahead and struck out the two reports!
4)After striking out the reports he in his ruling he says that the LSK,JSC,ICJ et al have termed the appointments unconstitutional and he agrees with them.Please note that by this time the committee reports which contained submissions by these bodies he refers to have been struck out,so what is the basis of this finding ?Is it the forum where the speaker told this bodies he had been threatened?And if that is so can the ruling be said to be independent as not to compromise integrity the office of the speaker.
5)THE ruling by Justice Musinga restrained parliament fro dealing with the issue at hand.The speaker held that that holding was of no effect.If he had struck to that note through out his ruling i would agree with his decision.But he didn't as he was selective on what he wanted to take from the ruling depending on whether it favored his master or not.The salient features of these selective dishonesty and amnesia are as follows:
a)Despite the edict from court not to proceed he proceeded yet ultimately he says it must respect the court when it says the nominations are irregular.
b)He makes a finding that there were no consultations and seems to state that consultations must be taken to mean agreement or consensus.This violates the judges ruling which was to the effect that there were consultations and consultations do not mean consensus.
c)He makes a finding that the issue of gender parity has not been violated because there are many other offices still awaiting appointment.These is despite the fact that the ruling of the court which he says he must respect and uphold only granted an injunction on the basis that gender parity had been violated
Lastly Marende must be reminded that he is not parliament but a parliaments employee
In a nutshell i see a speaker who failed to raise to the occasion beyond party allegiance,who stood not for his oath of office as a speaker but for his fidelity to the prime minister.I see a ruling that is not a ruling but a contradiction with no philosophy nor flowing consistent jurisprudence,so that i must reiterate that not only does it reek but it stinks
When the entire episode begun in the house the speaker referred it to the committees,subsequently his party members bought the issue back to him to make a ruling on the issue of subjudice and he held that parliament could not be debarred and i have no qualm with that interpretation.The committees then went on with their work only for political activists to call a press conference to allege that the speaker had been threatened.It is imperative to note that the speaker confirmed that he had actually received threats,but he never made a complaint to the police nor make a communication from the house,.This activists were witnesses in the committee,what they wanted done on the issue of the appointments was a matter of public notoriety ,so the question that begs for an answer is why Ceaser's wife sought to consort in privacy with the very people who represented a competing opinion before him while the matter was pending his own adjudication?Was the benchmark of beyond suspicion and reproach and not only to be independent but be seen to be independent met?Its imperative to note that millie adhiambo ,and oluoch olago were to replicate the same claims about their own selves while trying to rope in martha karua who promptly denied receiving any threats.The story line from the speakers party was similar to his all through,was this coincident?
After that,the legal affairs committee could not beat the deadline on the presentation of its report and his ruling or rather directions were curious as he said the committee should present a report whether its a one sentence report,a majority report or a minority report,.This went contrary to the practice and procedure in the commonwealth where issues are determined on the basis of a majority vote in the committees and in parliament.It may have been made casually done but the speaker set a dangerous precedent which shall make committee work very difficult as he in essence gave the membership for every member to come up with his own report,hence the embarrassment of the committees coming up with conflicting reports
Then now we come to the last ruling by the speaker which was full of contradiction that am surprised that anyone would propose the speaker for the supreme court.The only other judgment i can equate Marende's ruling to is the judgment by Hon Tuiyot in the Koigi Wamwere robbery with violence case and the judgments by the High court and Court of Appeal in the notorious Goldenberg cases.These are judgments that were tailor made for specific reasons with a particulars person or outcome in mind.They thus always violated precedent and were contradictory .My reasons for these are as here below:
1)The speaker explained that he could not make a ruling on this issue the first time it came to the house because there was no motion before him for him to rule so he referred the matter to the committees to bring a motion.Funny enough even as he made his ruling yesterday he had stopped the house business committee from bringing a motion on the issues at hand to the house so that no motion was moved to enable him make a ruling.
THIS was an affront to the rules of natural justice and the standing orders of the house more-so considering the members right to contribute was taken away.
2)The speaker prevaricated on this issue in the false belief that his party had numbers in the committee but when he discovered they were overwhelmed he changed goal posts and ruled that the constitutional issues could not be determined by numbers or voting.To me this was an aberration because even in court constitutional issues are determined by a vote of the judges ie split bench,
3)THE speaker held that the committee reports could not be tabled and be discussed.This begs for the question why did he waste precious time referring the matter to the committees,and at what point along the way did he experience a Saul on the way to Damascus and become a Paul on the issue.He thus went ahead and struck out the two reports!
4)After striking out the reports he in his ruling he says that the LSK,JSC,ICJ et al have termed the appointments unconstitutional and he agrees with them.Please note that by this time the committee reports which contained submissions by these bodies he refers to have been struck out,so what is the basis of this finding ?Is it the forum where the speaker told this bodies he had been threatened?And if that is so can the ruling be said to be independent as not to compromise integrity the office of the speaker.
5)THE ruling by Justice Musinga restrained parliament fro dealing with the issue at hand.The speaker held that that holding was of no effect.If he had struck to that note through out his ruling i would agree with his decision.But he didn't as he was selective on what he wanted to take from the ruling depending on whether it favored his master or not.The salient features of these selective dishonesty and amnesia are as follows:
a)Despite the edict from court not to proceed he proceeded yet ultimately he says it must respect the court when it says the nominations are irregular.
b)He makes a finding that there were no consultations and seems to state that consultations must be taken to mean agreement or consensus.This violates the judges ruling which was to the effect that there were consultations and consultations do not mean consensus.
c)He makes a finding that the issue of gender parity has not been violated because there are many other offices still awaiting appointment.These is despite the fact that the ruling of the court which he says he must respect and uphold only granted an injunction on the basis that gender parity had been violated
Lastly Marende must be reminded that he is not parliament but a parliaments employee
In a nutshell i see a speaker who failed to raise to the occasion beyond party allegiance,who stood not for his oath of office as a speaker but for his fidelity to the prime minister.I see a ruling that is not a ruling but a contradiction with no philosophy nor flowing consistent jurisprudence,so that i must reiterate that not only does it reek but it stinks
Comments
Post a Comment