When I last wrote on the Supreme Court of Kenya justices and the ruling they had made regarding the elections, a few friends asked me to wait for their detailed ruling. I did indicate that the detailed ruling wouldn’t change much. One among them, since at the press briefing, the chief justice did say they had reached a unanimous verdict. Can anyone tell me if there was a chance in their detailed ruling they would tell us there was dissenting opinion, I guess not?
Well I am yet to get a copy of that document. When I do I will share it here so that lawyers who follow this blog can look at it and say add their two cents of opinion, since as is known world over, lawyers always have something to say.
Don’t despair though, I have just read a piece written by a constitutional lawyer, he must know more about law than I do and it is a detailed verdict on what I had expressed about the court and its justices.
He gives the following five reasons why the court fucked
- Supreme Court’s reliance on backward looking, mean-spirited, cramped Nigerian precedent.
- Tolerant and uncritical acceptance of the IEBC’s explanations on the voter registers.
- Lack of clarity about IEBC’s duty to ensure that final results could be verified against provisional results.
- The Court’s use of subsidiary legislation to limit the meaning of “votes cast,” an unambiguous phrase in the Constitution.
- The evidential foreclosure that the Court imposes on itself by taking judicial notice of technology failures instead of treating IEBC as spurious.
The article can be found at
Verdict on Kenya’s presidential election petition: Five reasons the judgment fails the legal test
Random thoughts 
Seems like its our day for a little swearing 😉
LikeLike
Ah it seems, I thought it is a good title for what they did!
LikeLike
Can’t disagree on both counts guys. You are so good at this! I don’t mean the cursing, although… No, seriously, you are great at laying it all out neatly, clearly, so that the idiocy or the F**kupness (neologism?) of it all is blatant.
I am grateful for your anlyses peppered with humor and sarcasm. I’m French. We breathe sarcasm.
LikeLike
John is the master. One could read a post he has written and only realize days later they had been insulted, called names in a post so steeped in sarcasm that it would be late to try a comeback.
Thank you for the compliments! I think I need to develop it farther, maybe that way I’d engage the theists more.
LikeLike
Ah yes, my Kenyan brother with the acerbic tongue, the situation there is a stark reminder of the one here in the USA back in 2000 when George II (of the Bush dynasty) and the U.S. Supreme Court stole the election from candidate Al Gore (then the Vice-President). Funny how power bends in favor of the incompetent. Great arguments, man! Much love!
LikeLike
You cannot compare Africa to America ! Go figure.
LikeLike
True. However, stupid is stupid and stealing is stealing, no matter where it happens. That’s how I see it. Much respect!
LikeLike
:-D. Stealing is stealing no matter who does it, that we agree on.
LikeLike
I think you can. The difference is in degree not type… just saying
LikeLike
The incompetent are adept at stealing than the ones we think competent! I think it is almost a paradox.
I will tame my pen a bit 😀
LikeLike
Oh I see … you can get all passionate around such things as Supreme Court rulings, lawyers opinions (yes they always have a lot to say, and depending on who is paying, profess the truths as they fit -:)) … from where I come from we say something like – dogs barking while coaches travel through yet another night -:)!
Take Care,
Daniela
LikeLike
I have many loves and politics is one of them 🙂
I think I like that saying about dogs more. Add yes, lawyers are wont to sing to who’s calling the shots. It is a profession where nothing is black or white but shades of grey.
Hope you, my friend, are well.
LikeLike