The prevailing dislike for Uhuru is rendering Kenyans blind to other very crucial but unsettling flaws of the current constitution. Why designate the president of the Republic as the ultimate appointing authority and then curtail the same authority by denying him the right to his personal input? And why does this has to be only when it comes to the judiciary appointments? Uhuru is just but temporary. He is just a passing cloud. But the office of the president of Kenya shall remain with us forever!
The Constitution is not flawed on this one, it is plain and simple. Where no discretion is given none exists. If we were to allow every state officer to interpret 'shall' as 'may' it would be chaos, where input is not sought it should not be given. In any case his input is given through the AG who sits in the JSC and some 3 other representatives.
In fact, the issue here isn't his opinion, it is the intelligence reports he claims to have received from state organs pointing to impropriety on the part of the 6 judges.
It is those reports that need addressing and the Constitution provides a channel to do so through the removal process which has a significantly low burden of proof, all that is needed is a petition detailing the facts constituting grounds for removal, so if it is money laundering a statement from the bank showing that is sufficient, that alone gets you fired, if a state agency claims to have such evidence this should be a slumdunk case.
So no, the issue here isn't his opinion, even he doesn't claim to want to give it.
