The AG's rebuttal as summarized

[Othello]

wacha jokes, JSC hakuna mtu ako na veto power, wengi waki vote one way thats the way it goes. Hahahaha, ati anyone can institute removal of a judge, institute is the only thing you can do, kesi ya Mwilu imefika wapi. Ujinga for appointed fellows to hold such power. I repeat, let elected representatives have that power, if they choose to rubber stamp, so be it. As currently made up, JSC ni kama union ya judges na LSK, Chief Justice, one member of the supreme court, one member of court of appeal, one member High court judge, one member magistrates court, two LSK reps. 6/10 are there to represent judges and the crookest lawyers, yaani the status quo. Nothing touching on corruption of judges or lawyers will ever be allowed to pass that place

You are the joke.
"The removal of a judge may be initiated only by the JSC on its own motion, or by an individual's petition to the commission.If satisfied that the petition provides grounds for the judge's removal, the JSC sends the petition to the President, who within two weeks, suspends the judge and appoints a tribunal to investigate him or her." So in such a case, who do you think is the fault? Si juzi jamaa flani iliaccuse Ojwang na karibu.....
"
“The Registrar of the Judiciary, who is also the Secretary to the JSC, wrote to the director of the NIS seeking clearance on whether he had any adverse information about any of the 41 selected persons,” he said.

He noted that nothing was stated against the appointees and that that had the NIS volunteered any information about those affected, the JSC would have asked them to clear their names."- so how did JSC err in their recommendation?

Mr Muite further said the Attorney-General, who participated in the process of interviewing the applicants, failed in his duty in summoning the NIS director to get secret information about some of the judges.

We can never have a judge who is a product of politicians. Where on earth have you cited that from?

 

[Montecarlo]

The CJ is merely citing the ruling of the High Court which is the current interpretation of the Constitution until proceedings for the appeal begins then he cannot address the matter, for now anyone can comment on the matter. The CJ would only be in error if he was to make his own argument on the matter which he has not done.

It also should not be forgotten that the Judiciary too draws its power from the people which makes the CJ as the JSC Chairperson accountable to the people just as much as the President is accountable to the people, he is allowed, expected even, to use the public arena in pursuit of the Judiciary's goals.

Be as it may be, it is a generally accepted notion that the law does not exist in a vacuum. The CJ being aware that the list contains nominees whose integrity is questionable ought not have asked the President to provide a blanket approval. He should have struck out the judges whose integrity is questionable or returned the entire list to the JSC.
He lacks key management skills.

 

[Mwalimu-G]

He lacks key management skills.

he's captive to cartels.

 

[shocks]

We can never have a judge who is a product of politicians. Where on earth have you cited that from?

Hint for your slow brain, "kogello"

If satisfied that the petition provides grounds for the judge's removal, the JSC sends the petition to the President

Thats where the problem lies, those six guys representing judges and lawyers wil never allow certain sacred cows to be prosecuted.Niliuliza kesi ya Mwilu you quickly did an "OBAMAGATE" by asking about Ojwang.

“The Registrar of the Judiciary, who is also the Secretary to the JSC, wrote to the director of the NIS seeking clearance on whether he had any adverse information about any of the 41 selected persons,” he said.

why are we trying to reduce this to NIS, maybe Muite na registrar wako right, but is NIS rhe only body that could have adverse info on people?

I'm not saying uhuru is right, coz. thats where it seems you are coming from, I'm saying JSC is too powerfull for a board made up of appointed fellows

 

[Montecarlo]

You are the joke.
"The removal of a judge may be initiated only by the JSC on its own motion, or by an individual's petition to the commission.If satisfied that the petition provides grounds for the judge's removal, the JSC sends the petition to the President, who within two weeks, suspends the judge and appoints a tribunal to investigate him or her." So in such a case, who do you think is the fault? Si juzi jamaa flani iliaccuse Ojwang na karibu.....
"
“The Registrar of the Judiciary, who is also the Secretary to the JSC, wrote to the director of the NIS seeking clearance on whether he had any adverse information about any of the 41 selected persons,” he said.

He noted that nothing was stated against the appointees and that that had the NIS volunteered any information about those affected, the JSC would have asked them to clear their names."- so how did JSC err in their recommendation?

Mr Muite further said the Attorney-General, who participated in the process of interviewing the applicants, failed in his duty in summoning the NIS director to get secret information about some of the judges.

We can never have a judge who is a product of politicians. Where on earth have you cited that from?

You got something wrong. NIS did respond to the Registrar with the names what they didn't and shouldn't is provide the exact details. That information will only be shared with the President.
The NIS cannot avail detailed information that the AG would use to sue the said nominees to the same judges who will adjudicate the cases. For the JSC to insist they be given details they are more or less operating from an arrogant point where their decisions will not be questioned and if questioned enough information should be granted and they are the ones to dictate if the information is sufficient. NIS knows this and they won't be dragged into such a fight.
10 were cleared...21 were not and partly because the public complained about their conduct. If JSC is genuine why don't they look into the public complains levelled against the 21 nominees.
In a job interview when a referee offers an adverse opinion about a candidate; do you as the hiring manager start questioning why the referee is issuing such an adverse opinion or you strike off the candidate and proceed with the next?
Think please.... there's something called common law and it borrows heavily from customs and precedents.

 

[Montecarlo]

Hint for your slow brain, "kogello"

Thats where the problem lies, those six guys representing judges and lawyers wil never allow certain sacred cows to be prosecuted.Niliuliza kesi ya Mwilu you quickly did an "OBAMAGATE" by asking about Ojwang.

why are we trying to reduce this to NIS, maybe Muite na registrar wako right, but is NIS rhe only body that could have adverse info on people?

I'm not saying uhuru is right, coz. thats what it seems you are coming from, I'm saying JSC is too powerfull for a board made up of appointed fellows

Also remember the appointment of Judges is a political process no matter how one looks at it. The government needs a balanced Judiciary not one full of activists who are ready to plunge the country into distress so as to prove a point. A judge who isn't cognizant of the realities of the society they serve is worse than a dead one.

 

[Mr Black]

Be as it may be, it is a generally accepted notion that the law does not exist in a vacuum. The CJ being aware that the list contains nominees whose integrity is questionable ought not have asked the President to provide a blanket approval. He should have struck out the judges whose integrity is questionable or returned the entire list to the JSC.
He lacks key management skills.

Where in the Constitution does the CJ or JSC have such powers? Only the interviewing panel can strike out a candidate and that decision must be made based on evidence, a simple "questionable integrity" verdict is not evidence, evidence is details of what they did, when, where, why and with whom.

Anything less than that will open the floodgates to a world where the NIS (and the President) gets to have the power to have candidates struck off the shortlist based on one-line verdicts not evidence, that includes JSC commissioners, IEBC and independent commission members. The problem here is the opaqueness, it is fertile ground for skullduggery, we'd be back in the Moi era which is not something to smile about.

 

[Montecarlo]

Where in the Constitution does the CJ or JSC have such powers? Only the interviewing panel can strike out a candidate and that decision must be made based on evidence, a simple "questionable integrity" verdict is not evidence, evidence is details of what they did, when, where, why and with whom.

Anything less than that will open the floodgates to a world where the NIS (and the President) gets to have the power to have candidates struck off the shortlist based on one-line verdicts not evidence, that includes JSC commissioners, IEBC and independent commission members. The problem here is the opaqueness, it is fertile ground for skullduggery, we'd be back in the Moi era which is not something to smile about.

I see where you are coming from and your arguments are valid but you forget the CJ is the chair of the JSC. He signs off on the list of nominees. Administratively he ought to have handed over a redacted list as he proceeds to pursue the contentious issues with NIS or not submitted the list at all and followed up the matter with NIS bilaterally. What he is doing is throwing tantrums all over. It is not a matter of life and death is it?
We are all looking at the legal aspect of this but forgetting the administrative policies and procedures which ought to provide guidance. The registrar is a very poor administrator. She should've guided...not everything in an institution is about what the constitution says which basically will be reliance on the letter of the law and not its spirit. The others were cleared. Why didn't they go back to request for details on basis of clearance?

 

[Mr Black]

I see where you are coming from and your arguments are valid but you forget the CJ is the chair of the JSC. He signs off on the list of nominees. Administratively he ought to have handed over a redacted list as he proceeds to pursue the contentious issues with NIS or not submitted the list at all and followed up the matter with NIS bilaterally. What he is doing is throwing tantrums all over. It is not a matter of life and death is it?
We are all looking at the legal aspect of this but forgetting the administrative policies and procedures which ought to provide guidance. The registrar is a very poor administrator. She should've guided...not everything in an institution is about what the constitution says which basically will be reliance on the letter of the law and not its spirit. The others were cleared. Why didn't they go back to request for details on basis of clearance?

It all goes back to one issue, why cant the NIS share the whole report with the JSC? The commissioners are bound by the Official Secrets Act which protects the information they receive from the NIS, there is absolutely no reason to withhold information in a matter of public interest especially one with strict timelines.

 

[Mwalimu-G]

The cartel speaketh...

 

[Field Marshal]

The cartel speaketh...

What he is saying is that Maraga is an inflexible, opinionated and flatulent asso with a messianic delusion who nobody can reason with. Remember him knee-jerkingly defending the Akasha judge?

PS: His conduct has reinforced a belief I've always had since I was a kid. Deeply religious people generally have several nuts loose in their heads................and are usually using religion as a cover for inner inadequacies or weaknesses.............

 

[Montecarlo]

It all goes back to one issue, why cant the NIS share the whole report with the JSC? The commissioners are bound by the Official Secrets Act which protects the information they receive from the NIS, there is absolutely no reason to withhold information in a matter of public interest especially one with strict timelines.

We all forgot another crucial thing....the AG sits in the JSC. He was part and parcel of the vetting process and nowhere did he advice the JSC not to proceed with the candidates whose integrity was deemed questionable....so why did he back track and now he is up in arms with the CJ not even the JSC?

 

[Mwalimu-G]

He was part and parcel of the vetting process and nowhere did he advice the JSC not to proceed with the candidates whose integrity was deemed questionable

Have you seen the minutes of the vetting process? I am not saying he did but could have objected but was outvoted.
A fact I learned yesterday is that three quarters of the JSC are lawyers...and the lawyers' body is captive to a cartel...and the cartel is the one pushing the CJ to have their choices appointed before he leaves office hence the sudden pressure coz their plan is collapsing.

 

[Mr Black]

Have you seen the minutes of the vetting process? I am not saying he did but could have objected but was outvoted.
A fact I learned yesterday is that three quarters of the JSC are lawyers...and the lawyers' body is captive to a cartel...and the cartel is the one pushing the CJ to have their choices appointed before he leaves office hence the sudden pressure coz their plan is collapsing.

Another fact, 4 out of the 11 JSC commissioners are appointed by the President which means the President has a third of the JSC on his side, the AG essentially needs two more votes.

Be that as it may it becomes a whole new issue if the evidence against those 11 judges was brought before the panel and they proceeded to vote in favour of recommending the judges for appointment then it becomes a matter only the public can resolve, the President should release the dossier to the public, those judges will withdraw and set a high bar fot the JSC in future interviews

 

[bigDog]

Another fact, 4 out of the 11 JSC commissioners are appointed by the President which means the President has a third of the JSC on his side, the AG essentially needs two more votes.

Be that as it may it becomes a whole new issue if the evidence against those 11 judges was brought before the panel and they proceeded to vote in favour of recommending the judges for appointment then it becomes a matter only the public can resolve, the President should release the dossier to the public, those judges will withdraw and set a high bar fot the JSC in future interviews

Very good idea. Let that information be "leaked" to the media

 

[Montecarlo]

Have you seen the minutes of the vetting process? I am not saying he did but could have objected but was outvoted.
A fact I learned yesterday is that three quarters of the JSC are lawyers...and the lawyers' body is captive to a cartel...and the cartel is the one pushing the CJ to have their choices appointed before he leaves office hence the sudden pressure coz their plan is collapsing.

No wonder the tweet by the subreme goat.....

 

[Montecarlo]

Another fact, 4 out of the 11 JSC commissioners are appointed by the President which means the President has a third of the JSC on his side, the AG essentially needs two more votes.

Be that as it may it becomes a whole new issue if the evidence against those 11 judges was brought before the panel and they proceeded to vote in favour of recommending the judges for appointment then it becomes a matter only the public can resolve, the President should release the dossier to the public, those judges will withdraw and set a high bar fot the JSC in future interviews

The Judiciary's Director of Communication had the audacity to offer an alternative that Uhuru to go ahead and appoint all judges then initiate removal procedures for the questionable ones... didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
Maybe the AG got the full dossier in his capacity as the Government's legal advisor.

 

[Mwalimu-G]

No wonder the tweet by the subreme goat.....

Which tweet?

 

[Mwalimu-G]

didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

What would you have done?

 

[Montecarlo]

What would you have done?

As Uhuru or Director of Communications?