JonZu News

Pojim:

Mr Salim Lone quit long ago. It is Miguna Miguna, a former Secretary General of SONU.

Yes, Mr. Wako is accused of not acting enough given his stellar credentials before he became AG. But those qualities have served him well. The funny thing is that he is about to finally midwife a new constitution and that will be his legacy. Once the referendum is done and the Constitution enacted he may feel satisfied to go home to Busia. But who knows, he may be appointed a Court of Appeal Judge.

The good thing about Kenya politics is continuity. Those folks know each other pretty well.

Mr. Mutula Kilonzo is already Minister of Justice so he will stay there and that may rule out the Kamba fellow. Ah, Kenya.

PM Odinga left for Japan after suspending ministers and being reversed.

WBK

WBK;

I think that the Raila adviser you meant to refer to is Magina Magina, a former journalist. He and my former boss at the UN, Salim Lone (the Asian Kenyan who is always by Raila’s side), are highly experienced, clear-headed journalists. But, they are not political animals, and that may be why Raila got it wrong, this time. But WBK, Amos Wako’s personae has rubbed Kenyans the wrong way for a long time. Whenever he’s called upon to offer legal advice at critical moments, he chooses to wait out the storm and come up with a legal opinion that legitimatizes a political decision. As for his replacement, politically speaking, Kilonzo Mutula (Kamba) would be more preferable to Martha Karua for PNU to chop away from Agnes Ngilu’s wings. The other names you mentioned have little political influence, for now. Pojim Sent: Mon, February 15, 2010 12:13:34 PM

Pojim:

No, AG Wako’s temperament is actually similar to president Kibaki’s: that is how both have survived. Now here is another fact, former Minister Okemo a Mukhayo like AG Wako is in Ruto’s camp. My take is that AG Wako will weather the storm because he did not create it. The culprit is PM Raila’s hyperactive legal advisor Mr Miguna Miguna.

The names bundled out if Mr. Wako were to go include Mr. Willy Mutunga (Kamba) The current SG Mr Wanjuki Muchemi from Nyeri-something Mr Kibaki would not want to do, Mr. Lee Muthoga also from Nyeri, the very able Deputy Solicitor General Ms Muthoni Kimani, and Dr Gibson Kamau Kuria who is from Othaya.

Hon Karua is not predictable which is not good in Kenya ’s ever colorful politics.

PM Raila should not escalate the conflict. He should try to mend fences although in Kenya ’s ethnicized politics that is not easy to do. But he is a very rich man thanks to his alliances with Mr. Moi.

Since yesterday my e-mail has been full with emails from Kenyans of all sorts. Apparently they think I am Kenyan!

WBK

WBK;

I don’t think Amos Wako is indispensable. Firstly, he’s a civil servant, and secondly, a hold-over from the Moi era. Most importantly, his cautious temperament in this previously loud and constitutionally sensitive position, has created the impression that he is a coward and incompetent. As such, I think his replacement has negligible effect in the country as a whole, and Western Kenya in particular. Besides, with Wako out, Kibaki gets an immense opportunity to reach out to Martha Karua and retain the loyalty of her followers. That way, Kibaki neutralizes Karua’s presidential ambition, and at the same time reach out to women voters. Let’s stay tuned here, for the Raila I know won’t go down quietly. Pojim

Sent: Mon, February 15, 2010 10:46:45 AM

Pojim:

AG Wako will stay put because his departure would create problems for President Kibaki in terms of who to replce him. Remember he is now one of the ministers from Busia District and being Kenya , people would demand that his replacement should be someone from Western region.

Therefore AG Wako may stay until 2012 and go home on his terms. Plus he has a bigger job coming up to midwife the new constitution. That will be his legacy. .

The lesson for Ugandan opposition and govt too is to get older and wiser legal advisors. President YKM has also used junior lawyers some out of law school. Not good enough.

PM Raila was put in this unfortunate situation by poor advice of his young lawyers. They may be academically smarter, but lack lived experience which counts for something.

In truth, the actions came from the blue and put the country on the edge for not good reason.

PM Raila had everything to gain by simply going into opposition and bid his time for 2012. The rest is now history. Remember because of Mr. Annan’s moves, there is no opposition in their bunge.

The fellow in Ukraine was smart to go into opposition and bid his time: he has now won it all to implement his policies.

WBK

Musisi Bosco;

Those quotes from Attorney-General Amos Wako tells us absolutely nothing. As chief government adviser, my friend Wako is poorly serving Kenya at such a critical moment when his counsel is urgently need. This power struggle has degenerated into a constitutional crisis partly because of Hon. Wako’s timid leadership style, and because of well-timed, shrewd political maneuvering by PNU that managed to upstage its divided partner, ODM. The chief loser this time around will be Raila Odinga, because he has sold his souls so often for immediate personal political gains that his lieutenants are tired of clearing the paths for him. And Wako, the sagacious survivalist, will finally be shown the door. Pojim

Sent: Mon, February 15, 2010 9:05:39 AM

BBC

Feed Date: 15.02.2010 Feed Time: 16:17:11

Keywords: AF1, KENYA, GOVERNMENT Language: English

WBK;

I don’t think Amos Wako is indispensable.

Firstly, he’s a civil servant, and secondly, a hold-over from the Moi era. Most importantly, his cautious temperament in this previously loud and constitutionally sensitive position, has created the impression that he is a coward and incompetent.

As such, I think his replacement has negligible effect in the country as a whole, and Western Kenya in particular. Besides, with Wako out, Kibaki gets an immense opportunity to reach out to Martha Karua and retain the loyalty of her followers. That way, Kibaki neutralizes Karua’s presidential ambition, and at the same time reach out to women voters.

Let’s stay tuned here, for the Raila I know won’t go down quietly.

Pojim

Mr. George-Okello:

It was PM Raila Odinga’s son who made millions exporting maize to Sudan. Also, his firm was singly sourced. To complicate matters, the Administrative Secretary in the PM’s office Mr. Caroli Omondi -now suspended-was the one who chaired the tender award meeting. Furthermore, the cabinet sub committee was chaired by the PM.

The Minister of Agriculture and his now suspended PS-the man rumoured to be in line to become head of civil service had nothing to do with the maize scandal. At least not directly. Once the tender was awarded, the PM’s son was able to not only export maize from Kenya’s strategic reserves, but also to import maize duty free for export to Sudan. You be the judge whether that is above board or not. Do not take my word but do some reading about it elsewhere.

FYI, Mr. Raila Odinga has been involved in very corrupt dealings before such as, when he took the Kisumu Molasses plant -rumour has it that Dr Ouko was murdered for speaking out over the same plant-which was meant to benefit the region for his personal/family use. He took it after Dr Ouko had been killed when he made alliances with Mr. Moi and briefly served as Energy Minister. These are facts and nothing to do with hate.

No, no, no, do not accuse Mr. Kibaki, of breaking up ODM. It was infighting within ODM that gave the PM’s opponents to divide them further.

WBK

My friend John,

Remember these ministers are accused of embezzling millions of dollars. The European Union stopped giving any more funds to the Education ministry unless action was taken. The Minister of Agriculture was accused of exporting millions of tons of grain at a time when Kenyans were starving and there was an embargo on exports. I don’t know too much about Kenyan politics, but these ministers were part of Raila Odinga’s alliance. Kibaki is smiling now because he has an opportunity to break up Odinga’s alliance. He is not going to do anything about these thieving ministers. He is just like Museveni.

George O. Pacu-Otto

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 7:06 PM, John wrote:

Birds of the same feather flok together, he has learnt prety good from his buddie from next door. Quote Raila Odinga has stated that he consulted President Mwai Kibaki before suspending the two Ministers for 3 months. But president Mwai Kibaki has so far turned around and denied the fact; he said he was not aware of it, and so like he ran to be sworned in as president of Kenya after 2007 election violence, 2 minutes after the results were announced, yesterday it took him two seconds to counter the Prime Minister’s decision – lets not forget that the constitution grants Raila the power to administer the Ministers

John Lema.

Cc: voice-of-uganda@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, February 15, 2010 1:54:37 PM

Omukulu Musisi,

I think Pojim is getting tired or something worse!

How can the quotes from Attorney General Wako tells us nothing? For starters, Attorney General Wako has narrowed this issue to FACTS!! And that is just about all, as far as the constitutional crisis is concerned!

Raila Odinga has stated that he consulted President Mwai Kibaki before suspending the two Ministers for 3 months. But president Mwai Kibaki has so far turned around and denied the fact; he said he was not aware of it, and so like he ran to be sworned in as president of Kenya after 2007 election violence, 2 minutes after the results were announced, yesterday it took him two seconds to counter the Prime Minister’s decision – lets not forget that the constitution grants Raila the power to administer the Ministers.

The suspension of the two Ministers for 3 months is not a dismissal, but a disciplinary action by someone who administer the Ministers! And the case here is CORRUPTION! President Mwai Kibaki can’t parade himself as someone who defend corruptions in the country! It is going to come down hard on him. Just watch it.

If the constitution says Raila as PM must consult the President over matters like this, and Raila says he did consult the President, but the President is denying ever knowing about it, then who is telling the truth and who is telling lie? Has Raila, as PM ever failed to consult the President on any issue before? If he has not, then how can he fail to consult the President now, on matters of suspending the Ministers for 3 months?

The fact of the matter is President Kibaki is lying, and must be shown the door. Those luo haters like Kyijomanyi, who are ullulating on this development should take caution; they might be ullulating too soon. The Prime Minister cannot fail to consult the President! Besides, President Mawi Kibaki has a track record of being dishonest, as can be evident by his rush to get sworned into office after the election violence even when Kenyans were still dying in droves on the streets!!

I don’t think, in the longrun, he can win on this. Stay tune.

OpaA

Mw. Edward Pojim,

You make a valid point, although Kenyan politics is not exactly my cup of tea.

MB Auckland

Birds of the same feather flok together, he has learnt prety good from his buddie from next door. Quote Raila Odinga has stated that he consulted President Mwai Kibaki before suspending the two Ministers for 3 months. But president Mwai Kibaki has so far turned around and denied the fact; he said he was not aware of it, and so like he ran to be sworned in as president of Kenya after 2007 election violence, 2 minutes after the results were announced, yesterday it took him two seconds to counter the Prime Minister’s decision – lets not forget that the constitution grants Raila the power to administer the Ministers John Lema.

Right to a fair hearing.(1) In the determination of civil rights and obligations or any criminal charge, a person shall be entitled to a fair, speedy and public hearing before an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law(2) Nothing in clause (1) of this article shall prevent the court or tribunal from excluding the press or the public from all or any proceedings before it for reasons of morality, public order or national security, as may be necessary in a free and democratic society.

(3) Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall— (a) be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty or until that person has pleaded guilty; (b) be informed immediately, in a language that the person understands, of the nature of the offence; (c) be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his or her defence; (d) be permitted to appear before the court in person or, at that person’s own expense, by a lawyer of his or her choice; (e) in the case of any offence which carries a sentence of death or imprisonment for life, be entitled to legal representation at the expense of the State; (f) be afforded, without payment by that person, the assistance of an interpreter if that person cannot understand the language used at the trial;

(g) be afforded facilities to examine witnesses and to obtain the attendance of other witnesses before the court.

(4) Nothing done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with— (a) clause (3)(a) of this article, to the extent that the law in question imposes upon any person charged with a criminal offence, the burden of proving particular facts; (b) clause (3)(g) of this article, to the extent that the law imposes conditions that must be satisfied if witnesses called to testify on behalf of an accused are to be paid their expenses out of public funds.

(5) Except with his or her consent, the trial of any person shall not take place in the absence of that person unless the person so conducts himself or herself as to render the continuance of the proceedings in the presence of that person impracticable and the court makes an order for the person to be removed and the trial to proceed in the absence of that person.

(6) A person tried for any criminal offence, or any person authorised by him or her, shall, after the judgment in respect of that offence, be entitled to a copy of the proceedings upon payment of a fee prescribed by law.

(7) No person shall be charged with or convicted of a criminal offence which is founded on an act or omission that did not at the time it took place constitute a criminal offence.

(8) No penalty shall be imposed for a criminal offence that is severer in degree or description than the maximum penalty that could have been imposed for that offence at the time when it was committed.

(9) A person who shows that he or she has been tried by a competent court for a criminal offence and convicted or acquitted of that offence shall not again be tried for the offence or for any other criminal offence of which he or she could have been convicted at the trial for that offence, except upon the order of a superior court in the course of appeal or review proceedings relating to the conviction or acquittal.

(10) No person shall be tried for a criminal offence if the person shows that he or she has been pardoned in respect of that offence.

(11) Where a person is being tried for a criminal offence, neither that person nor the spouse of that person shall be compelled to give evidence against that person.

(12) Except for contempt of court, no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the penalty for it prescribed by law.

even when the law says the money must go back into general funds???

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=520060

Aw, what’s the matter – still pissed of that you can’t realize your dreams of a whites-only fascist dictatorship here too? That’s just too bad. Go wave some signs at passing cars so you’ll feel better.

“Place me not with those who are weak of mind and willingly give up the rights of others, for these poor ignorant souls know not that the rights they give up are their own!” — Warren Friton

In a message dated 1/13/2010 1:41:59 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, boldsaber@gmail.com writes:

Very good, Comrade. Give us documentation from a blog site with the obviously unbiased url:

Inaccurate arguments about constitutional and legal issues persist in Honduras coup

[NOTE: comments on this post originally made in October asked us to try to find a way to keep it at the top of the blog. We found a somewhat odd way to achieve that goal that deferred it to December. We now have solved the puzzle the way it should have been originally-- RAJ]

The same bad arguments continue to be offered by readers of this blog, so we decided it is worth reviewing what is and is not true about the constitutionality of the removal from office of President Zelaya June 28. We have tried to link back to earlier blog posts, many of them reporting the opinions of Honduran law professors, Edmundo Orellana, Efrain Moncada, Ramon Enrique Barrios, and their Spanish counterpart, Francisco Palacios Romeo.

As its beginning point, this post specifically responds to a comment left by someone called “Admin” on a previous _post_ (http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009/10/failure.html) , “Failure and a Public Proposal”. Admin repeats every one of the major pro-coup arguments, all of which have been disproven by legal analyses now so widely available that their persistence in Honduras is mainly a reminder of how successful the propaganda has been in Honduras.

Admin wrote:

The problem IS judicial not political. [The} Supreme Court of Justice has fired Zelaya due to he broke the constitution rules. This is the problem. Wrong. The Supreme Court never ruled on any of the charges filed by the Public Prosecutor on June 26. There is a persistent misunderstanding of the long documents the Supreme Court posted, which holds that they include a statement removing him from office. They don't; what they do say is that, since the Congress has removed him from office, he is now a common citizen, so the charges filed against him would no longer be heard by the Supreme Court (which only was hearing the case because it has jurisdiction over high government officials).

Admin then rehearses what he/she understands are the basic constitutional issues:

1- Try to change the constitution to implement the reelection is PROHIBIT[ed] – (see article 374). Yes. Article 374 prohibits changes to, or a sitting government official even suggesting changes to, presidential terms. But President Zelaya never made any such suggestion. What happens is that people who are supporting the coup claim either that the only reason to propose a constitutional assembly was for that purpose (which ignores the issues the Zelaya government actually _proposed_ (http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-advocates-hoped-to-change-in.html) needed to be addressed) or that proposing a constitutional assembly would automatically put Article 374 under discussion. But in either case, the _claim_ (http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009/08/28th-of-june-and-constitution-by.html) is that a possible outcome, denied by President Zelaya, was the same as actually committing a violation. The Honduran Constitution guarantees freedom of thought, and guarantees that you will be prosecuted only for crimes you commit.

Admin continues

2 – To do “poll opinion” about reelection is PROHIBIT[ed]. (see article 5 + article 374 – you must read both articles together in order to understand) Yes, you need to read each article of the Constitution, and not pick and choose– which means you cannot ignore the many violations of due process, and such violations as expatriating the President, which is against the constitution. But reading Articles 5 and 374 doesn’t get us anywhere here. The encuesta was not about re-election. It _asked_ (http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009/08/28th-of-june-and-constitution-by.html) only whether people were for or against having a question on the November ballot about whether people were in favor of having a constituent assembly. Not the same thing at all. So Article 374 is irrelevant.

Article 5 deals with the need for citizen participation to be incorporated in government. It regulates plebiscites and referenda. By the time the June 28 encuesta was in place, it no longer had any characteristics of a referendum or a plebiscite. It was_ a non-binding opinion poll_ (http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009/08/there-was-no-constitutional-succession.html) . There is a dispute about whether opinion polls could take place at all. The decisions by a lower court, which the Supreme Court refused to review, did tell the Zelaya administration not to do anything to ask citizen opinion, not even to think about anything of the kind. Whether that really was a

The Moral and Constitutional Case for a Right to Gay Marriage
by Robert A. Levy
Robert A. Levy is chairman of the Cato Institute.

Added to cato.org on January 7, 2010

This article appeared in the New York Daily News on January 7, 2010.

Following bitter defeats in California, Maine, and New York, the gay and lesbian community has a New Year’s victory to celebrate. New Hampshire joins four other states ­ Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont ­ in legalizing gay marriage. And the nation’s capital is also onboard. Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty put it this way: "Marriage inequality is a civil rights, political, social, moral and religious issue."

He covered all the bases, except one: It’s a constitutional issue as well.

Thomas Jefferson set the stage in the Declaration of Independence: "[T]o secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men." The primary purpose of government is to safeguard individual rights and prevent some persons from harming others. Heterosexuals should not be treated preferentially when the state carries out that role. And no one is harmed by the union of two consenting gay people.

Of course, government discriminates among its citizens all the time.

For most of Western history, marriage was a matter of private contract between the betrothed parties and perhaps their families. Following that tradition, marriage today should be a private arrangement, requiring minimal or no state intervention. Some religious or secular institutions would recognize gay marriages; others would not; still others would call them domestic partnerships or assign another label. Join whichever group you wish. The rights and responsibilities of partners would be governed by personally tailored contracts ­ consensual bargains like those that control most other interactions in a free society.

Regrettably, government has interceded, enacting more than 1,000 federal laws dealing mostly with taxes or transfer payments, and an untold number of state laws dealing with such questions as child custody, inheritance and property rights. Whenever government imposes obligations or dispenses benefits, it may not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That provision is explicit in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applicable to the states, and implicit in the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the federal government.

Of course, government discriminates among its citizens all the time. By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks and certain Asians. Until 1954, all states were allowed to operate segregated schools. Thankfully, the Supreme Court invalidated both interracial marital restrictions and school segregation. The court applied the plain text of the Equal Protection Clause despite contrary practices by the states for many years even after the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

To pass constitutional muster, racial discrimination had to survive "strict scrutiny" by the courts. Government had to demonstrate a compelling need for its regulations, show they would be effective and narrowly craft the rules so they didn’t sweep more broadly than necessary. That same regime should apply when government discriminates based on gender preference.

No compelling reason has been proffered for sanctioning heterosexual but not homosexual marriages. Nor is a ban on gay marriage a close fit for attaining the goals cited by proponents of such bans. If the goal, for example, is to strengthen the institution of marriage, a more effective step might be to bar no-fault divorce and premarital cohabitation. If the goal is to ensure procreation, then infertile and aged couples should be precluded from marriage.

Instead, most states have implemented an irrational and unjust system that provides significant benefits to just-married heterosexuals while denying benefits to a male or female couple who have enjoyed a loving, committed, faithful and mutually reinforcing relationship over several decades. That’s not the way it has to be. Government benefits triggered by marriage could just as easily be triggered by other objective criteria, leaving the definition of marriage in the hands of private institutions.

For instance, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee recently voted to extend employee benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. The qualifying criterion, which could also apply to heterosexual couples, is an affidavit identifying the domestic partner and certifying that the partnership is intended to be exclusive and permanent, within a common residence, with shared responsibilities.

Similarly, some states dispense benefits to qualifying gay couples joined in predefined civil unions. Even private-sector employers are increasingly offering same-sex "marital" benefits. According to the federal Office of Personnel Management, nearly 60% of Fortune 500 companies confer employment benefits on domestic partners.

Yet our politicians, unwilling to privatize marriage, seem congenitally unable to extricate themselves from our most intimate relationships. One would hope, in the coming months and years, that more enlightened federal and state legislators will have the courage and decency to resist morally abhorrent and constitutionally suspect restrictions based on sexual orientation. Gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity accorded to all Americans.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11112

Is Nigeria facing a constitutional crisis? *With President Yar’adua absent from the country for more than a month, legal pressure is mounting from those who believe the government is failing to abide by the constitution. *

The Nigerian Bar Association has gone to the Federal High Court to argue that with the president receiving lengthy medical treatment in Saudi Arabia power should be transferred to vice-president Jonathan Goodluck.

In addition human rights lawyer Femi Falana wants judges to annul all decisions taken by the cabinet during the president’s absence such as the appointment of the new Chief Justice.

The country’s foreign minister, Ojo Maduekwe, has told the BBC he hasn’t spoken to the president since he left the country and many Nigerians are becoming increasingly concerned about what they see as a power vacuum.

*So who is actually running Nigeria? What are the constitutional implications of the president’s absence? Should the vice-president take full control? If you live in Nigeria is it business as usual or cause for concern? *