Njoki Ndungu and Jackton Ojwangs' disparage on the majority opinion as ruled by Lady Justice Philomena Mwilu, Justices David Maraga, Smoking Wanjala and Isaac Lenaola, only confirms theirs were mere political rulings argued legally. It can be argued their detailed judgement which was more of a lecture or legal harangue than a court judgement had a political impetus as it curculated around decrying the majority ruling. What the two judges read as their detailed rulings were somewhat akin to a thesis on how the majority opinion can be wrong. Instead of articulating their judgement and cause why, they deviated to gathering enormous arguments and counter arguments that could rebut the majority ruling.
If they were honest which in my opinion they were not, they could have stuck to their lanes. It behooved them to enumerate on the basis of their judgements and not why the dissenting opinion -in this context- were not appropriate a judgement to be adopted. Using a plethora of reference and many citations which could only distract the public from the real particulars of their reasoning and falsely give an impression of their ruling being comprehensive, well articulated researched and legally informed. So much that she found herself quoting as reference the Case of Raila Odinga petition of 2013, which even laymen like us understand is not worthy of use as reference.
In my opinion, it seems both justice Jackton Ojwang and Lady justice Njoki were not sitting on the fence as befits judges, but had political affiliation which they covertly espoused in their determinations. One is compelled to believe the dissenters had special instructions to water down and attack the majority ruling to configure public perception. Political warfare is the most intricate war that is fought on varied battlefields, literally everywhere and anywhere opportunity arises or can be created.
How can two judges attempt to dissuade the public into believing their fellows having contrary opinion were wrong and only their opinions can be right? As far as I am concerned, the other judges never attacked the minority opinion, something which was possible. This simply because one has to respect the other persons opinion even when one feels he is the one who is right. I hope in my own random thoughts that the duo were not dissenting this legally to endear themselves for the positions of Chief justice and deputy chief justice respectively in the near future.
In her dissent, she insinuated she examined all the form 34As and 34Bs in person to ascertain they were authentic unlike the majority judges. This beats logic. 40 883 Form34s and 291 Form 34Bs, honestly, even if we assume she spent a minimum of 2 minutes to verify one form, she then would require 82, 348 minutes, an equivalent of 1373 hours or approximately 2 months of working hours. If we assume she was working 10 hours a day she would then need a minimum of four and half months to scrutinize the forms. If she was to spend a little more time writing her judgment, then it is logical and only humanly possible to say her judgment would be ready only in not less than 5 months. So the question that begs an answer is how did she come up with her opinions or judgement? Were they written by different people appointed by the government or ruling party for that matter and collated so that she could read it as her own composition and judgement? Did the executive have a hand in her submissions with a view of trimming Judiciary and specifically supreme court to size? Perhaps, so that the public could be deluded to believe these were coming from Lady Justice Ndungu. Only her knows the truth regarding her extensive scolding legal harangue.
As if that is not enough, Lady Justice Njoki proposed radical recommendations, which she wished to be done so as to protect what in her independent opinion, she equated to the will of the citizens, the numbers. In her own judgement she gave precedence to the numbers while subordinating the process producing those numbers. This implies she, in her proposals did not not create an equilibrium of judgement but out-rightly gave Lee way for election rigging through ballot staffing. Her proposed amendment's which were received with zeal, zest and pomp by the ruling faction jubilee to the extent the president had to call on the legislature to expedite the process of formulating and moving with speed to pass the amendments in Parliament. When she want the public to believe the numbers minus the qualitative or processes constitute the will of the citizenry, what happens where the will of the people is subverted through rigging coupled by the diminutive petition timelines. Am not surprised, this is Africa. in Africa power corrupts all minds, even the most brilliant ones
Her recommendations, proposals and arguments were contrary to Chief Justice David Maraga's press statement in which he on behalf of the judiciary stated clearly that, under the doctrine of principle of separation of powers, judiciary as an arm of government will not and has no intention whatsoever to advice, direct or decide how the executive arm of government operates. This pronouncement by Chief justice according to deputy president's tweet, did not augur well with the executive as can now be interpreted, they(the executive arm) were working behind the scene with Lady Justice. She literary directed parliament -an arm of government- on what legislation it needs to effect in order to insulate the executive against judicial action on bungled elections. It is awful how her dissent opinion was diametrically contravening the unanimous decision of the judiciary not to direct or schoolmaster other arms of government.
Attacking the majority opinion was the point of divergence where these two dissenting rulings lost value. Firstly, by attempting to use public domain to decry an adopted ruling was like cranking a political ringtone. They failed miserably to demonstrate unity in purpose exposing their inability to go with the majority ruling, since theirs was only to be heard, for if need be, consideration. The sharp political division between NASA and Jubilee was replicated in the Supreme court detailed judgement. As the two dissenting opinions were read the difference in political affiliation reverberated overwhelmingly, and up to now till then the political resonance will not dimminuate because the dissents were sand-witched in political inclination.
There is nowhere in law, in which ones argument can be explicitly right when it sustains breaches to prevailing laws. There will always be other arguments which hold but the most important is the judgement. Better is a judgement adopted by the majority judges. In this scenario the majority ruling cannot be underscored by the minority dissent.
If I may ask. Lady Justice refuted a commonly accepted view of IEBC not complying to the court order instructing them on access to their servers. Her argument being IEBC was protecting the integrity of their Kiems technology. What is the logic in this kind of argument especially by a judge, who should give precedence to integrity of the court? Failing to do what the court has ordered to be done and the same court accepting your non compliance with your own alibi? Where does her argument derive any basis when the numbers she is advocating for at the expense of the process are in the servers? She downplayed IEBC contempt of court and still wants Kenyans to think she had grounds for dissenting? Also, how could votes be re-tallied or recounted when it was obvious IEBC could not account for each ballot paper printed by AlGhurair publishing and printing firm, and when ballot staffing was also mentioned by the petitioner? Her suggestion of recount, which she knew well had the respondents preyed could have turned tragic on the respondents and worked in favor of the petitioner, could only be used as a propaganda to win public confidence after the preliminary ruling. Particularly because the judgement was already made and obviously could not be changed
When Lady Justice Njoki says, "Nullifying elections is a punishment on the voters who spent a lot of time in the queue and braced bad whether." How is her statement different from saying, "rigging or bungling elections is a punishment on the voters who spent a lot of time in the queue and braced bad whether?
In conclusion, not as a judge or lawyer, though In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, "It is highly unwise to be too sure of ones own wisdom, and it is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weakens and the wisest might errs." It is on this basis why Lady justice Njoki and Justice Jackton Boma Ojwang erred in choosing to tear in the majority ruling.
If they were honest which in my opinion they were not, they could have stuck to their lanes. It behooved them to enumerate on the basis of their judgements and not why the dissenting opinion -in this context- were not appropriate a judgement to be adopted. Using a plethora of reference and many citations which could only distract the public from the real particulars of their reasoning and falsely give an impression of their ruling being comprehensive, well articulated researched and legally informed. So much that she found herself quoting as reference the Case of Raila Odinga petition of 2013, which even laymen like us understand is not worthy of use as reference.
In my opinion, it seems both justice Jackton Ojwang and Lady justice Njoki were not sitting on the fence as befits judges, but had political affiliation which they covertly espoused in their determinations. One is compelled to believe the dissenters had special instructions to water down and attack the majority ruling to configure public perception. Political warfare is the most intricate war that is fought on varied battlefields, literally everywhere and anywhere opportunity arises or can be created.
How can two judges attempt to dissuade the public into believing their fellows having contrary opinion were wrong and only their opinions can be right? As far as I am concerned, the other judges never attacked the minority opinion, something which was possible. This simply because one has to respect the other persons opinion even when one feels he is the one who is right. I hope in my own random thoughts that the duo were not dissenting this legally to endear themselves for the positions of Chief justice and deputy chief justice respectively in the near future.
In her dissent, she insinuated she examined all the form 34As and 34Bs in person to ascertain they were authentic unlike the majority judges. This beats logic. 40 883 Form34s and 291 Form 34Bs, honestly, even if we assume she spent a minimum of 2 minutes to verify one form, she then would require 82, 348 minutes, an equivalent of 1373 hours or approximately 2 months of working hours. If we assume she was working 10 hours a day she would then need a minimum of four and half months to scrutinize the forms. If she was to spend a little more time writing her judgment, then it is logical and only humanly possible to say her judgment would be ready only in not less than 5 months. So the question that begs an answer is how did she come up with her opinions or judgement? Were they written by different people appointed by the government or ruling party for that matter and collated so that she could read it as her own composition and judgement? Did the executive have a hand in her submissions with a view of trimming Judiciary and specifically supreme court to size? Perhaps, so that the public could be deluded to believe these were coming from Lady Justice Ndungu. Only her knows the truth regarding her extensive scolding legal harangue.
As if that is not enough, Lady Justice Njoki proposed radical recommendations, which she wished to be done so as to protect what in her independent opinion, she equated to the will of the citizens, the numbers. In her own judgement she gave precedence to the numbers while subordinating the process producing those numbers. This implies she, in her proposals did not not create an equilibrium of judgement but out-rightly gave Lee way for election rigging through ballot staffing. Her proposed amendment's which were received with zeal, zest and pomp by the ruling faction jubilee to the extent the president had to call on the legislature to expedite the process of formulating and moving with speed to pass the amendments in Parliament. When she want the public to believe the numbers minus the qualitative or processes constitute the will of the citizenry, what happens where the will of the people is subverted through rigging coupled by the diminutive petition timelines. Am not surprised, this is Africa. in Africa power corrupts all minds, even the most brilliant ones
Her recommendations, proposals and arguments were contrary to Chief Justice David Maraga's press statement in which he on behalf of the judiciary stated clearly that, under the doctrine of principle of separation of powers, judiciary as an arm of government will not and has no intention whatsoever to advice, direct or decide how the executive arm of government operates. This pronouncement by Chief justice according to deputy president's tweet, did not augur well with the executive as can now be interpreted, they(the executive arm) were working behind the scene with Lady Justice. She literary directed parliament -an arm of government- on what legislation it needs to effect in order to insulate the executive against judicial action on bungled elections. It is awful how her dissent opinion was diametrically contravening the unanimous decision of the judiciary not to direct or schoolmaster other arms of government.
Attacking the majority opinion was the point of divergence where these two dissenting rulings lost value. Firstly, by attempting to use public domain to decry an adopted ruling was like cranking a political ringtone. They failed miserably to demonstrate unity in purpose exposing their inability to go with the majority ruling, since theirs was only to be heard, for if need be, consideration. The sharp political division between NASA and Jubilee was replicated in the Supreme court detailed judgement. As the two dissenting opinions were read the difference in political affiliation reverberated overwhelmingly, and up to now till then the political resonance will not dimminuate because the dissents were sand-witched in political inclination.
There is nowhere in law, in which ones argument can be explicitly right when it sustains breaches to prevailing laws. There will always be other arguments which hold but the most important is the judgement. Better is a judgement adopted by the majority judges. In this scenario the majority ruling cannot be underscored by the minority dissent.
If I may ask. Lady Justice refuted a commonly accepted view of IEBC not complying to the court order instructing them on access to their servers. Her argument being IEBC was protecting the integrity of their Kiems technology. What is the logic in this kind of argument especially by a judge, who should give precedence to integrity of the court? Failing to do what the court has ordered to be done and the same court accepting your non compliance with your own alibi? Where does her argument derive any basis when the numbers she is advocating for at the expense of the process are in the servers? She downplayed IEBC contempt of court and still wants Kenyans to think she had grounds for dissenting? Also, how could votes be re-tallied or recounted when it was obvious IEBC could not account for each ballot paper printed by AlGhurair publishing and printing firm, and when ballot staffing was also mentioned by the petitioner? Her suggestion of recount, which she knew well had the respondents preyed could have turned tragic on the respondents and worked in favor of the petitioner, could only be used as a propaganda to win public confidence after the preliminary ruling. Particularly because the judgement was already made and obviously could not be changed
When Lady Justice Njoki says, "Nullifying elections is a punishment on the voters who spent a lot of time in the queue and braced bad whether." How is her statement different from saying, "rigging or bungling elections is a punishment on the voters who spent a lot of time in the queue and braced bad whether?
In conclusion, not as a judge or lawyer, though In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, "It is highly unwise to be too sure of ones own wisdom, and it is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weakens and the wisest might errs." It is on this basis why Lady justice Njoki and Justice Jackton Boma Ojwang erred in choosing to tear in the majority ruling.
Comments