Uhuru Appoint judges, Leaves Odunga, Joel Ngugi, and 4 others

Although framers wa constitution tried to make JSC and judiciary independent and equal arms of government, its impossible chiefly because while the president and MPs are elected, judiciary officers are appointed. Hii vita haitawai isha, sahii ni president amekataa, at some other point itakuwa parliament imekataa.
Solution ni negotiated appointments, between the executive and legislature, but where does this leave the JSC? In the fullness of time, the appointing authority of JSC will be scrapped! Call this the USA solution
 
Mwalimu-G said:
JSC is supposed to send its recommendations to the President for appointment. A recommendation is a proposal or suggestion; not an order. My two sous.
Click to expand...
I may not be a constitutional expert but a simple reading of the constitution says the president SHALL! It is not a suggestion. "The word shall in any law is an imperative. It means this will be done."

According to Article 166 1b, it reads:-

Appointment of Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and other judges. 166.

(1) The President shall appoint—

(a) the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice, in accordance with the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission, and subject to the approval of the National Assembly; and

(b) all other judges, in accordance with the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission.


The process the JSC took to come up with the 41 judges is similar to that which they used to come up with the Chief Justice. As you can see in 1a, it is also a 'recommendation' but the president has no input except appointing. His role is ceremonial.
 
bigDog said:
When you got the power to appoint, you have the power to reject. If the framers of our constitution thought the president was a figure head, they would have created an automatic clause that makes it mandatory for the President to do what the JSC bids.

It happens that you can't be appointed into a judicial position if either of the legislature or executive reject you.

Thats balance of power!
Click to expand...
Well said. Power to appoint comes with Power of Exercising that Discretion. You don’t act like a Robot but put your best considerations into the Exercise.
 
Othello said:
Govt apologists behaving like they are law experts. we'll see if it's the judges of the incompetent thief who will end up with an egg on the face. we'll be here not far
Click to expand...

If anything, the one thing I appreciate about this whole debacle is that it has given me an opportunity to learn the constitution, at least in parts. Never cared about it before.

Government apologists are bringing their biases into this as if there is no reference material, which is the constitution. Ati the president can appoint in his own discretion as if the constitution doesn't say he SHALL, as in he MUST.
 
ouru seems to be trying to please the military at any cost its as if he is trying to entice them to his corner labda he might them post 2022 general elections that is if there will be any
 
Denis Young said:
Do you know what is ironic about this statement, the National Assembly and Senate were just saying the other day how their role is not ceremonial when canvassing a popular initiative. They claimed how they can open and edit the bill but eventually they were told wao ni conveyor belt which I am sure you agreed with. Now when the president is required by the constitution to be a conveyor belt it is now convinient for you that he can reject?

To be wise, to be intelligent, is to recognize when your bias overtakes your ability to think straight. Waffling around opinions and twisting them to fit your narrative is just doing yourself a disservice. For your own sake, desist.
Click to expand...

The president can overrule the parliament and veto a bill. A bill never becomes law until he signs it. When the president vetoes a bill the parliament requires a super majority to overcome his veto. Once such a super majority is achieved in parliament, the law passes without requiring the president's signature.

If the framers of our constitution thought that the JSC can override a presidential veto, they should have put a mechanism to override such a veto. My point is that our president is not a ceremonial head of state and government.
Denis Young said:
If anything, the one thing I appreciate about this whole debacle is that it has given me an opportunity to learn the constitution, at least in parts. Never cared about it before.

Government apologists are bringing their biases into this as if there is no reference material, which is the constitution. Ati the president can appoint in his own discretion as if the constitution doesn't say he SHALL, as in he MUST.
Click to expand...

Leta wrink. Give me a reference to a constution article or indeed law that obligates the president to appoint everyone recommended by the JSC.

Some posters above have told you that the president can overule the parliament. Sembuse the JSC?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top