Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactician
this is not about pattni's interests or national interest am afraid to say. This is a legal matter to be settled by the presently established laws of the land. If we think pattni is trampling on our national interests, then we change the law - for future purposes. If you appreciate law, then u know the law is an ass - and national interests do not matter.
|
Now that we are back to debating the issues, let us not forget that this thing is being played out live because it has great political repercussions.
Unfortunately, I would have to disagree with you on the matter being strictly a legal issue because Kimunya is a public servant, CBK is a public institution and the funds in question are public funds. The matter is therefore first a matter of national interest.
Isn't it a fact that even judges consider the greater public interest aside the legal issues when deciding cases of public interest?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactician
If in doubt, ask how many people have been convicted as murderers and sentenced to death by the high court only to see them set free by the court of appeal simply cos the police held the convict for more than the required 14 days before charging them in court. If it was about national interest, the court of appeal would say that the national interest of keeping a convicted murderer in jail is more important then the law.
So let us disabuse the idea that this is a case of national interest. This is a case of due legal process and whether kimunya followed it or not. After all, there is no offence in the penal code called "acting against national interest by selling grh/public assets". The law kimunya would be accused of flouting are the privatisation act etc....in which case the whole case would hinge on whether grh was a public asset so that kimunya could privatise it.
|
Having said that, the legal issues cannot be gain said. The AG has in his comments agreed with what I stated earlier i.e. that "The import of the consent was that CBK assumed ownership of the GRH, thus, GRH became public property and hence subject to the PP&D Act".
CBK assumed legal possession of the GRH on the basis of the very same consent that they now seek to disown, they sold the hotel on this basis and did not even bother to seek a court order as would have been required if it was simply an issue of redeeming the charge. The law has clearly been broken.
Obviously the rank at CBK is deeply involved in the charade, that is why they went ahead and issued an advert seeking to set the facts right, but ended up with a mishmash of contradictory positions. If that was not enough the CBK rank went ahead to implicate the NSIS boss in the matter. Don't you see the sludge?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactician
Anyway, it is the law that decided which interests are paramount, - not public opinion. Which is why MPs, ministers, judges swear allegiance to the constitution and the laws - not to the people of kenya. The only way public opinion affects court judgments in a democracy is by electing mps to change the law which the judges then interpret. Thats the way it is.
So dont doubt my interest in stating that kimunya was right. I am simply following what the law says - unless of cos u r suggesting the public should vote on all legal matters so as to decide which national interests are paramount.
|
Don't get me wrong, you are not on the dock here, I'm simply interested in getting your opinion and how you arrived at it. If in my asking, I came out as accusing you of anything, my bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactician
Yes i agree that cbk was removed as receiver manager in 1994. The minister for finance and the cbk governor then (mudavadi & kotut) can best answer why this happened. Without delving into details, let it suffice to say that the politics and the attendant corruption involving grh could not have let cbk run grh as receiver manager.
Pattni also launched so many court cases and counterclaims against cbk, used politicians to influence judiciary etc that cbk could not make any headway. The legal costs involved in grh are probably what makes cbk get the whole kshs 2.9 billion ie kshs 400m would then represent the costs.
|
If we are in agreement on this then what are all this calls/argument for Pattni to be refunded the difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactician
This was the whole point of the agreement between cbk and pattni - ie that all these counterclaims be dropped amicably - otherwise pattni could go ahead and do what he has perfected ie go to court to block the sale and wer are back to 1993 all over again.
|
I thought you stated earlier that CBK was not party to the consent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactician
Lastly, lets also address the political question - there is a lot of hypocrisy which we kenyans are displaying here. The reasoning is - if a minister is suspected of corruption, then he must resign. Kimunya has been suspected and he should resign - thats the argument being made.
If we adopt this, let us also simultaneoulsy call for the resignation of all ministers and assistant ministers charged in court on corruption charges. On a political front, note some of the politicians are very quiet on kimunya's saga - cos they know that kimunya's removal on allegations will bring them down too - not even raila will take on kimunya head on - which is why we are hearing uhuru cautioning that if this is the way to go, then the grand coalition govt will collapse.
After all, all the main players have been accused of corruption by other probes or in a court of law. I mention probes cos thats what we have for kimunya....in the examples below, i have produced those people accused by probes/charges in a court of law - not mere allegations
would raila for example be willing to resign as pm since the ndung'u report accused him of corruption in acquiring mollasses?
will oburu odinga resign cos he is also mentioned in the ndung'u report for acquiring land illegally? In fact, will the same MPs now saying they cannot allow Kimunya to move finance motions in parliament cos of suspicions of corruption allow Oburu to move motions yet he is accused of the same?
would mudavadi resign cos of the goldenburg scam?
would ruto resign cos of the kenya pipeline corruption case currently in court? after all, how does ruto sit in the same cabinet with the same man (wako) who is prosecuting him in court?
would chris obure and okemo resign cos of initiating/signing of the anglo leasing contracts? etc etc
My take, from a political angle, is that Kibaki and Raila will realise what this will do to the govt - and theywill move to kill all these Kimunya talk as they both stand to lose from the above repercussions
|
I agree with you that there is a lot of hypocrisy and that suspicions alone should not be adequate grounds to remove a public officer. However, they are adequate grounds to have the officer subjected to a probe and if found wanting, enough grounds to have him/her step aside to allow the due process.
Kimunya was subjected to investigation by the Government that he serves, he subjected himself to the investigators knowingly and willingly. He did not raise an objection to being investigated by this committee until they issued an unflattering report.
He has gone public claiming that he expected protection from the PM and has further gone to allege that their was corruption in the process, didn't he claim that Orengo demanded a bribe? did he report this to KACC? Did he not proceed to bulldoze the process despite the incidences of impropriety.
The President while inaugurating the Coalition Government clearly stated that Ministers suspected of corruption will have to step aside, what more would one need?
07-08-2008, 04:20 AM
Linear Mode
