SUSAN WONG

Susan Wong is the Editor of Capital Lifestyle, a resident photographer, an award-winning journalist, radio presenter, full-time adventurer, long-time admirer of anything edible, and a spicy food athlete at Capital FM.

  • Eng. Stephen Auma

    The High Court just heightened
    the confusion surrounding the election date instead of solving it;

    1.       They
    stressed that the President and the Prime Minister will remain in office (as is
    provided for the constitution) until the next President is sworn in. but they
    introduced a contradiction when they said that the President and the PM can
    dissolved the ‘Coalition’ to trigger the holding of general elections within 60
    days of that dissolution. I hope that by ‘Coalition’ they meant the ‘Coalition
    Government’. A government can never be dissolved. You may dissolve Parliament,
    Cabinet etc but not Government. The heads of government merely hand over to the
    next elected head of government but government must always be there. So if the
    ‘coalition’ is dissolved, what does that mean in real terms? What stops
    operating? My understanding as a layman is that the only way the ‘coalition’
    can be ‘dissolved’ is if the President and the PM dissolve the cabinet and then
    vacate office as contemplated in section 12 (1) and (2) of the 6th
    Schedule. However, this means the Vice-President will act until the next
    President is sworn in which political circumstances cannot allow to happen.
    Some busybodies must lodge an appeal against the Judgment so that the
    ambiguities in section 9, section 12(1) and (12) of the 6th Schedule
    are addressed by the Court of Appeal.

    2.       I
    do not know whether the Judges were aware that even if the ‘coalition’ is
    dissolved, Parliament (in accordance with the constitution and their own
    observation) will not be dissolved and will hence continue operating until the
    elections are held. So, how will the process of preparation for elections
    affect or be affected by a National Assembly in session?

    3.       I
    agree with Mutula that this confusing Constitution must be amended to make the
    6th schedule clear. For instance, what is the difference between the
    phrases, ‘before 2012’ and ‘during 2012’ used in section 9(2) of the 6th
    schedule? My understanding is that ‘before 2012’ means before 1st
    Jan 2012 and ‘during 2012’ means any time from 1st January 2012 to
    31st December 2012.
     

  • Kilanpatrick

    I have  feeling this country is under a serious grip of lawyers. No other opinion counts -only that of lawyers – yet the can never agree on anything. Have you watched parliament lately – debates are dominated by lawyer MPs. The rest become spectators. Long are the days when the wisdom of a farmer was listened to in quiet. WHO WILL SAVE US FROM THE LEGALESE SHACKLES.

  • Pratt

    Some rulings are no ruling at all. Either some one avoided facing extremely serious important national issue head on, or simply cowardice took charge. Government was there even before the coalition one was formed. It wont therefore help anyone to pretend that dissolving seemingly an extremely empty item can result in election. Those who used violence to join it would simply be jettisoned and thats all. Clear constitutional provision is the best way forward. Seen how the Pm has been laboring on the matter when the ultimate boss keeps us guessing? If the Pm was a serious guy, he would be telling us definite things not the old type tired stuff. Kenyans need swift proper direction and not mere empty politicking. 

  • Len

    This debate should not exist: the high court has made its ruling.  Until a superior court rules otherwise, all these “expert” opinions are meaningless. 

You may also like...