DOCSLIB.ORG

Replying Affidavit of Winifred Waceke Guchu In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Replying Affidavit of Winifred Waceke Guchu In REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF KENYA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2017 H.E RAILA ODINGA……………………………………..……..1ST PETITIONER H.E STEPHEN KALONZO MUSYOKA…………...……….....2ND PETITIONER AND THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION…………………….........1ST RESPONDENT THE CHAIRPERSON OF INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION………..2ND RESPONDENT H.E UHURU KENYATTA……………………………………..3RD RESPONDENT 3RD RESPONDENT'S AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY TO THE AFFIDAVITS OF 1ST PETITIONER AND DR. NYANGASI ODUWO I WINIFRED WACEKE GUCHU, a resident of Nairobi and of Post Office Box Number 38601- 00623, Nairobi make oath and state as follows; 1. I am the Executive Director of Jubilee Party (“JP “). I was the Deputy Chief Presidential Agent for JP’s Presidential team during the recently concluded 2017 general election for purposes of Regulation 57 of the Elections (General) Elections, 2012. I am thus competent to make this affidavit. I now produce a true copy of my appointment letter which is marked “WG 1” 2. I make this affidavit on the basis of matters within my own knowledge and as regards matters of law, on the basis of advice from counsel on record which advice I verily believe to be correct. 3. In the aforesaid elections, Jubilee nominated Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto as its Presidential and Deputy Presidential candidates respectively. (“JP candidates”). RESULTS 4. On 11th August 2017, the 2nd Respondent announced that the JP candidates won the Presidential election contest on the basis of the following results, which were arrived at after the 1st and the 2nd Respondent had assured themselves that the results were accurate: 1 NAME VOTES PERCENTAGE JOHN EKURU LONGOGGY 27,311 0.18% AUKOT MOHAMED ABDUBA DIDA 38,093 0.25% SHAKHALAGA KHWA 11,705 0.08% JIRONGO JAPHETH KAVINGA KALUYU 16,482 0.11% UHURU KENYATTA 8,203, 290 54.27% MICHAEL WAINAINA 13,257 0.09% MWAURA 5. JP as a party also won a majority of positions in all the other five elections conducted on the same day. The following is a summary of the results in the 5 other elections for Gubernatorial , Senate, National Assembly, Women Representative and Members of County Assembly: Kenya 2017 Presidential Vote Distribution Presidential Election Votes Uhuru Kenyatta 8,203,290 Raila Odinga 6,762,224 Joseph William Nthiga Nyagah 42,259 Mohamed Abduba Dida 38,093 John Ekuru Longoggy Aukot 27,311 Japheth Kavinga Kaluyu 16,482 Michael Wainaina Mwaura 13,257 Shakhalaga Khwa Jirongo 11,705 2017 Number of Governors by Party Number of Governors per Party Jubilee Party 25 ODM 13 WDM-K 2 Independent 2 FORD-K 2 NARC 1 MCCP 1 KANU 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2 Kenya 2017 Number of Senators by Party Senators JUBILEE PARTY 25 ODM 13 WDM-K 2 KANU 2 ANC 2 PDR 1 FORD KENYA 1 CCU 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Kenya 2017 Number of Woman Representatives by Party Woman Representatives JUBILEE PARTY 25 ODM 11 WDM-K 3 KANU 2 PDR 1 MCCP 1 INDEPENDENT 1 FORD KENYA 1 EFP 1 ANC 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 3 Kenya 2017 Number of Members of National Assembly by Party Number of Members of National Assembly by Party JP 140 ODM 61 WDM-K 19 IND 13 ANC 12 KANU 8 FK 5 FORD-KENYA 5 EFP 4 MCCP 3 PDR 3 CCM 2 KNC 2 KPP 2 PDP 2 0DM 1 CCU 1 DP 1 FAP 1 MUUNGANO 1 NAPK 1 ND 1 PNU 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 4 Kenya 2017 Number of Members of County Assemblies by Party Number of MCAs per Party Jubilee Party 582 ODM 338 IND 105 WDM-K 87 FK 51 ANC 47 Kanu 38 PNU 27 MCCP 22 EFP 15 PDR 14 CCM 12 NARC 10 MUUNGANO 10 NARC-K 9 KPP 8 PPOK 7 PDP 6 UDP 5 FAP 5 LPK 4 KADU 4 DP 4 NARC-KENYA 3 KSC 3 SDP 2 PTP 2 PICK 2 PDU 2 NVP 2 ND 2 MGPK 2 KNC 2 FPK 2 DC 2 CCU 2 SAFINA 1 RBK 1 PPK 1 NARC 1 KADU-ASILI 1 DPK 1 DDA 1 AGANO 1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 6. The difference between the votes cast in favour of JP’s candidates and those cast in favour of the Petitioners, at the date the results were declared, is 1,441,066. The said difference is very significant and emphatically demonstrates the resolve of the people of Kenya to exercise their free and sovereign will. 5 7. According to observers of Kenya’s political landscape, voter registration patterns prior to the election and several polls indicated that JP enjoyed significant support in Rift Valley, Upper Eastern region, parts of Nyanza and Western Kenya, North Eastern Kenya, increased support in Coast , Nairobi and in Central Kenya accounting for a potential voter base of 7, 500, 000 while NASA had firm support in parts of Nyanza, parts of Western, parts of Coast and in lower Eastern region, accounting for a potential voter base of 6,000,000. The ultimate results are therefore not surprising. 8. The Petitioners have not presented any or any credible evidence and/or material that would invoke the jurisdiction of this honourable to disturb the sovereign will of the people of Kenya exercised so emphatically on 8th August 2017. CONDUCT OF ELECTION IN CONTEXT OF ARTICLES 81 TO 91 of THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 9. I have nevertheless now read the Petition and Supporting Affidavits filed by the Petitioners to challenge the validity of the election held on 8th August 2017and indeed the entire electoral process. I make this affidavit in response and in opposition thereto and in particular the affidavit of Dr. Nyangasi Oduwo. 10. Having perused the Petition and the supporting affidavits filed with it, it is clear to me that the Petition is loosely structured around four (4) broad pillars, all erected on a foundation of quicksand. The said pillars are as follows: i) That the results declared on 11th August 2017 are invalid on account of irregularities and numerical errors the Petitioners allege they have found in Form 34A and Form 34B; ii) That the 2nd Respondent had no legal basis for declaring results while approximately 11,000 Form 34A’s had not been transmitted electronically which the Petitioners contend was the exclusive statutory mode of transmitting results; iii) That the Presidential Election was marred and significantly compromised by intimidation and improper influence or corruption contrary to Articles 81(e) (ii) of the Constitution as read together with the Elections Act and Regulations 3 and 6 of the Electoral Code of Conduct; iv) That the Presidential Election was so badly conducted, administered and managed by the 1st Respondent as to contravene and violate Articles 38, 81 and 86 of the Constitution of Kenya as read together with section 44 of the Elections Act; 11. It is immediately clear to me that the Petitioner has gone to very great lengths to exaggerate facts, peddle outright falsehoods and suppress material facts in a bid to mislead this Honourable Court and thereby obtain an unjust advantage to 6 the prejudice and subversion of the will of the Kenyan people expressed in a free, fair and credible election. 12. I have actively participated in all aspects of the electoral process either directly or through agents of JP. I can unequivocally state that in my view the 1st Respondent and its staff, including the 2nd Respondent, have conducted the entire process with remarkable diligence, efficiency and in full fidelity to the standards established in the Constitution and all the electoral laws. 13. To my knowledge, the electoral process, as with all human endeavours, does encounter problems all over the world but the elections held on 8th August 2017 exceeded the statutory threshold for a credible election. 14. For clarity, I reject all the allegations, both specific and vague, set out in the Petition and in the affidavits filed in support thereof, regarding the misconduct and irregularities attributed to the 1st and 2nd Respondents. 15. The Petitioners dedicate a considerable portion of their Petition to attempting to demonstrate how hopelessly incompetent and inefficient the 1st Respondent is. Nothing could be further from the truth and the Petitioner’s anger at the Respondents must be viewed against the following facts and circumstances; i. In 2013, the Petitioner participated in the Presidential election and was declared the runner up. He rejected the results on the basis, inter alia, that the 1st Respondent had “stolen” the election from him. ii. His claims were rejected by this honourable court in a decision reported as Raila Odinga & 2 others v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 3 others [2013] eKLR iii. The Petitioner, with the assistance of surrogates affiliated to an umbrella NGO entity known as Africog, including Mr Maina Wachira and Mr Maina Kiai, immediately thereafter embarked on a project to undermine the judicial authority of this honourable court and the confidence Kenyans were developing in their constitutional and statutory institutions by making scathing attacks in local, regional and international media on the court , the 1st Respondent and any other institution or individual who had played any role in the election. iv. The Petitioners also alleged, without any basis, that the election was in fact a military coup. They have repeated the same baseless claims again this year both before and after the elections including filing a court case against the Kenya Defence Forces. v. In the intervening period, the 1st Petitioner has persisted in peddling, at every opportunity and forum, the false and untenable narrative that elections can only be considered free fair and credible in Kenya if he is declared the winner.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Elections in Kenya: 2017 Rerun Presidential Election Frequently Asked Questions
    Elections in Kenya 2017 Rerun Presidential Elections Frequently Asked Questions Africa International Foundation for Electoral Systems 2011 Crystal Drive | Floor 10 | Arlington, VA 22202 | www.IFES.org October 25, 2017 Frequently Asked Questions Acronym list .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Why is Kenya holding a second presidential election? ................................................................................. 2 What challenges does the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission face in organizing the rerun election? .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Will voters use any form of electronic voting? ............................................................................................. 5 What technology will be used during the October presidential election? ................................................... 5 What are areas of concern regarding potential electoral violence? ............................................................ 5 Who is eligible to run as a candidate in this election? ................................................................................. 7 What type of electoral system will be used to elect the president? ............................................................ 8 Will members of the diaspora be able to vote in this election? ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections from Kenya's 2010 Transformative Constitution
    Developing Progressive African Jurisprudence: Reflections from Kenya’s 2010 Transformative Constitution 2017 LAMECK GOMA ANNUAL LECTURE Lusaka, Zambia, July 27, 2017 Willy Mutunga1 Preliminary Remarks Chair of SAIPAR Members of the Institute I thank the Southern African Institute for Policy and Research (SAIPAR) for inviting me to give the PROFESSOR LAMECK GOMA ANNUAL LECTURE 2017. The late Professor Goma was a great scholar, the first Zambian Vice-Chancellor of the University of Zambia. He was also a great researcher and a patriotic public servant. 1 Dr. Willy Mutunga is the former Chief Justice of the Republic of Kenya and the President of the Supreme Court of Kenya. A major part of my remarks are taken from a speech I gave to Judges and guests of the Kenyan Judiciary on the occasion of the launching the Judiciary Transformation Framework on May 31, 2012. That speech has been published in the Socialist Lawyer: Magazine of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers. Number 65. 2013,20. The journey of my thoughts since then and now reflected in this Lecture owes a great debt of intellectual, ideological and political gratitude to the following mentors and friends: Professors Jill Ghai, Yash Ghai, Sylvia Tamale, Joel Ngugi, James Gathii, Joe Oloka-Onyango, Issa Shivji, Makau Mutua, Obiora Okafor, Yash Tandon, David Bilchitz, Albie Sachs, Duncan Okello, Roger Van Zwanenberg, and Shermit Lamba. My Law Clerks at the Supreme of Kenya, namely, Atieno Odhiambo, Sam Ngure and Maxwell Miyawa helped with research. The theme of this Lecture is drawn
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Act
    LAWS OF KENYA SUPREME COURT ACT NO. 7 OF 2011 Revised Edition 2017 [2011] Published by the National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney-General www.kenyalaw.org [Rev. 2017] No. 7 of 2011 Supreme Court NO. 7 OF 2011 SUPREME COURT ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I – PRELIMINARY Section 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. 3. Object of the Act. PART II – ADMINISTRATION OF THE SUPREME COURT 4. Vacancy not to affect jurisdiction. 5. Order of precedence of judges of the Supreme Court. 6. Presiding judge. 7. Procedure if judges absent. 8. Manner of arriving at decisions. 9. Registrar of the Supreme Court. 10. Functions of the Registrar. 11. Revision of decisions of the Registrar. PART III – JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT 12. Determination of disputes arising out of presidential elections. 13. Advisory role. 14. Special jurisdiction. PART IV – APPEALS TO THE SUPREME COURT 15. Appeals to be by leave. 16. Criteria for leave to appeal. 17. Direct appeals only in exceptional circumstances. 18. Reasons for refusal of leave to appeal. 19. Extent of appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. PART V – GENERAL 20. Appeals to proceed by fresh hearing. 21. General powers. 22. Power to remit proceedings. 23. Exercise of powers of the Court. 24. Interlocutory orders and directions by the Court. 25. Judgment of the Court. 26. Delivery of judgment. 27. Decisions of the Court may be enforced by the High Court. 28. Contempt of Court. 29. Seal of the Supreme Court. 30. Representation before the Supreme Court. 31. Rules. 3 [Rev. 2017] No.
    [Show full text]
  • NATIONAL SUPER ALLIANCE Chairman, Article 86 of The
    NATIONAL SUPER ALLIANCE 10th August 2017 Mr. Wafula Chebukati Chairperson IEBC National Tallying Center Bomas of Kenya Nairobi Chairman, RE: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULT Article 86 of the Constitution requires as follows “At every election, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission shall ensure that— (a) whatever voting method is used, the system is simple, accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable and transparent; (b) the votes cast are counted, tabulated and the results announced promptly by the presiding officer at each polling station; (c) the results from the polling stations are openly and accurately collated and promptly announced by the returning officer; and (d) appropriate structures and mechanisms to eliminate electoral malpractice are put in place, including the safekeeping of election materials.” We have information of the actual presidential election results contained in the IEBC database. NATIONAL SUPER ALLIANCE The data, which confirm the authentic and legitimate result of the presidential election, shows that the two leading candidates obtained the following votes: • Raila Amolo Odinga 8,041726 votes • Uhuru Kenyatta 7,755,428 Votes Screenshots of the results as displayed on your website and monitors at Bomas show the following results: • Uhuru Kenyatta 8,056,885 • Raila Amolo Odinga 6,659,493 Evidently, the accurate and lawful results in the presidential election is the transmission received from the polling stations and contained in the IEBC servers. We have annexed the following: • The actual and complete data contained in IEBC servers (dbo.PRESIDENTIAL_REAL_TIME); and • The screenshots obtained from the IEBC website. We therefore demand as follows: 1. That you stop forthwith the display of unverified and unauthenticated results.
    [Show full text]
  • 14Th September, 2017 TO; the Secretary Judicial Service
    14th September, 2017 TO; The Secretary Judicial Service Commission Supreme Court Building NAIROBI Dear Madam, RE: PETITION AGAINST JUSTICE DAVID MARAGA Chief Justice & President of Supreme Court A. COMPLAINTS & FACTS THEREOF 1.0 Violation of Regulation 12 of The Judicial Code of Conduct & Ethics The Chief Justice has invited, encouraged and permitted entry into the core of the Judiciary by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) who are known protagonists of the President and Deputy President and who propagated the prosecution of the President and Deputy President at the International Criminal Court (ICC). These elements have now captured the Judiciary with the intent of procuring a regime change through judicial radicalism. The Chief Justice has, inter alia; a) Invited, facilitated and supported the embedding of technical support and financing by the International Development Law Organization (IDLO) to entities within the Judiciary including the Judicial Training Institute, National Council for Administration of Justice and Judicial Election Committee, with full knowledge that the IDLO organization is associated with the known anti-government partisan protagonists, including Makau Mutua who is a Board Member thereof; with full knowledge that the entity collaborates with local non-state actors that participated in prosecuting the President and Deputy President at the I.C.C; with full knowledge that the entity is further associated with local non-governmental organizations and individuals who petitioned against the election of the President
    [Show full text]
  • NASA Manifesto
    A STRONG NATION NATIONAL SUPER ALLIANCE COALITION MANIFESTO 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword 3 Nation Building 4 State Building 9 DRAFTTransforming Governance 13 Realizing Social and Economic Rights 18 Creating Jobs, Eradicating Poverty 22 Regional and International Cooperation 37 1 NATIONAL SUPER ALLIANCE MANIFESTO NATIONAL SUPER ALLIANCE MANIFESTO FOREWORD NASA Coalition exists to pursue five objectives namely, to promote national unity, to uphold, guard and respect the dignity of all individuals and communities, to return country to the path of constitutional and democratic development; end the culture of impunity; and to restore sanity in the management of the economy and public affairs of our Nation. These objectives are enunciated in the Coalition Agreement between the five founder political parties namely Amani National Congress (ANC), Chama Cha Mashinani (CCM), Forum for the Restoration of Democracy Kenya (FORD-Kenya), Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) and the Wiper Democratic Movement Kenya (WDM-Kenya) The Coalition is governed by progressive values and principles of democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law; equality and equity, including affirmative action; human rights, dignity and freedom; inclusive governance, equitable, sustainable development and social justice; transparent, accountable and accessible leadership; empowered citizens who actively participate in governance and policy processes; free, vigorous media and vibrant civil society, freedom of information; zero tolerance to corruption; and free, fair and credible
    [Show full text]
  • Governance Assessment Kenya 2016.Pdf
    GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT KENYA: JANUARY 2013 – JULY 2016 Kenya: Governance Assessment GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT Kenya: January 2013 – July 2016 Roland Ebole and Morris Odhiambo1 1 Introduction This report focuses on politically significant developments in Kenya from 2013, when the country held its first general elections under the 2010 constitution. The constitution is considered to have markedly enhanced protection of basic rights, significantly constrained executive power, and provides limited devolution of powers across 47 newly created county governments.2 In 2013, Kenya held its first general election under the 2010 constitution. Kenyans cast their votes for president, national and county-level representatives, female representatives to the National Assembly, and governors. With 50.5% of the vote, Uhuru Kenyatta of the National Alliance (TNA), backed by the Jubilee Alliance, won the presidency. His opponent, Raila Odinga of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), backed by the Coalition for Reforms and Democracy (CORD), was second with 43.7%. The election of governors and local assemblies strengthened the position of county governments. Female representatives to the National Assembly were elected in all 47 counties3 while 16 more were nominated to the Senate.4 Following the vote, CORD and a civil society organization (CSO) challenged the outcome of the presidential election at the Supreme Court,5 which had only 14 days to consider their petition under the constitution.6 Moreover, the pay scale for members of parliament set by the Salaries and Remuneration Commission was rejected by legislators, forcing the SRC to approve higher salaries.7 Implementation of the constitution and additional reforms continued, including the vetting of police officers by the National Police Service Commission (NPSC) and scrutiny of judges and magistrates by the Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board (JMVB).
    [Show full text]
  • IN the SUPREME COURT of KENYA at NAIROBI (Coram: Maraga, CJ & P, Mwilu, DCJ & V-P, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola, SCJJ)
    REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (Coram: Maraga, CJ & P, Mwilu, DCJ & V-P, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola, SCJJ) PRESIDENTIAL PETITION NO. 1 OF 2017 BETWEEN 1. RAILA AMOLO ODINGA……………………….……….1ST PETITIONER 2. STEPHEN KALONZO MUSYOKA……………………2ND PETITIONER AND 1. INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION……….................1ST RESPONDENT 2. CHAIRPERSON, INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION…….……… 2ND RESPONDENT 3. H. E. UHURU MUIGAI KENYATTA.…….…….3RD RESPONDENT AND 1. DR. EKURU AUKOT……………………...…..1ST INTERESTED PARTY 2. PROF. MICHAEL WAINAINA………….…2ND INTERESTED PARTY AND 1. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL………………..……1ST AMICUS CURIAE 2. THE LAW SOCIETY OF KENYA……………..2ND AMICUS CURIAE JUDGMENT A. INTRODUCTION [1] Kenya is a Sovereign Republic and a Constitutional democracy founded on national values and principles of governance in Article 10 of her Constitution. All sovereign power in the Republic is reserved to her people but delegated to “Parliament and legislative assemblies in the County Governments; the national executive and the executive structures in the County Governments; and the Judiciary and the independent tribunals.”1 In the election of her representatives, Kenya holds general elections on the second Tuesday of August in every fifth year.2 [2] On 8th August, 2017, Kenya held her second general election under the Constitution 2010 and Kenyans from all walks of life trooped to 40,883 polling stations across the country to exercise their rights to free, fair and regular elections under Article 38(2) of the Constitution. That date is significant because it was the first time that a general election was being held pursuant to Article 101(1) of the Constitution which decrees the holding of general elections every five years on the second Tuesday of August in the fifth year.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission of Political Party Nomination Rules
    PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE SUBJECT: SUBMISSION OF POLITICAL PARTY NOMINATION RULES NAIROBI, KENYA: Wednesday, March 8th, 2017 – The Commission is in the process of reviewing the nomination rules submitted by 67 registered political parties to ensure compliance with the prescribed guidelines and respond to the democratic principles of governance as espoused by Article 91 of the Constitution. One provisionally registered political party and one Coalition also submitted their nomination rules. The Commission published a public notice requiring Political Parties to submit Nomination Rules by 2nd March, 2017. Political Parties are further reminded to submit their membership lists on or before 19th March, 2017. The following Political Parties submitted their nomination rules by 2nd March, 2017 1. Progressive Party of Kenya 2. Ford-Kenya 3. Chama Cha Uzalendo 4. Democratic Congress 5. Kenya Social Congress 6. United Democratic Movement 7. Diligence Development Alliance 8. Ukweli Party 9. New Democrats 10. Democratic Party of Kenya 11. Party of Democratic Unity 12. Roots Party of Kenya 13. Maendeleo Democratic Party 14. Mzalendo Saba Saba 15. Alternative Leadership Party of Kenya 16. Kenya National Democratic Alliance 17. People’s Party of Kenya 18. Empowerment and Liberation Party 19. Vibrant Democratic Party 20. Kenya National Congress 21. NARC-Kenya 22. Kenya Patriots Party 23. Party of Independent Candidates of Kenya 24. National Rainbow Coalition 25. Restore and Build Kenya Party 26. Citizen Convention Party 27. Farmers Party of Kenya 28. Green Congress of Kenya Party 29. Devolution Party of Kenya 30. Amani National Congress 31. Safina Party of Kenya 32. People’s Empowerment Party 33.
    [Show full text]
  • Kenya 2017: the Interim Elections? Justin Willis - Durham University Nic Cheeseman - University of Birmingham Gabrielle Lynch - University of Warwick
    NOTE ACTUALITE 2 KENYA 2017: THE INTERIM ELECTIONS? Justin Willis - Durham University Nic Cheeseman - University of Birmingham Gabrielle Lynch - University of Warwick Juillet 2017 L’Observatoire de l’Afrique de l’Est (2017-2010) est un programme de recherche coordonné par le Centre d’Etude et de Documentation Econo- mique, Juridique et Sociale de Khartoum (MAEDI-CNRS USR 3123) et le Centre de Recherches Internationales de Sciences Po Paris. Il se situe dans la continuité de l’Observatoire de la Corne de l’Afrique qu’il remplace et dont il élargit le champ d’étude. L’Observatoire de l’Afrique de l’Est a vocation à réaliser et à diffuser largement des Notes d’analyse relatives aux questions politiques et sécuritaires contemporaines dans la région en leur offrant d’une part une perspective historique et d’autre part des fon- dements empiriques parfois négligées ou souvent difficilement accessibles. L’Observatoire est soutenu par la Direction Générale des Relations Inter- nationales et de la Stratégie (ministère des Armées français). Néanmoins, les propos énoncés dans les études et Observatoires commandés et pilo- tés par la DGRIS ne sauraient engager sa responsabilité, pas plus qu’ils ne reflètent une prise de position officielle du ministère de la Défense. Il s’appuie par ailleurs sur un large réseau de partenaires : l’Institut fran- çais des relations internationales, le CFEE d’Addis-Abeba, l’IFRA Nai- robi, le CSBA, LAM-Sciences Po Bordeaux, et le CEDEJ du Caire. Les notes de l’Observatoire de l’Afrique de l’Est sont disponibles en ligne sur le site de Sciences Po Paris.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Justice Systems Baseline Policy, 2020
    AlternativeALTERNATIVE JUSTICE SYSTEMS FRAMEWORKJustice SystemsPOLICY Baseline Policy traditional, informal and other mechanisms used to access justice in kenya (alternative justice systems) August 2020 Copyright © Judiciary of Kenya, 2020 Published by The Judiciary of Kenya P.O. Box 30041 - 00100, Nairobi Tel. +254 20 2221221 First edition: August 2020 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the author or acknowledging the source except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review. Cover photo: Allan Gichigi/UNODC Design and layout: Amina Darani/UNODC This publication was produced with technical assistance from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and with the financial support of the European Union through the Programme for Legal Empowerment and Aid Delivery in Kenya (PLEAD). Its contents are the sole responsibility of the Judiciary of Kenya and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union or UNODC. JUSTICE AS FREEDOM1: TR ADITIONAL, INFORMAL AND OTHER MECHANISMS FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN KENYA August 2020 Alternative Justice Systems Baseline Policy 1 This phrase is borrowed from Amartya Sen,Development as Freedom (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999). Accord- ing to Sen (at page 3), development should not be gauged solely from an economic perspective or opportunities that any project is likely to create. Rather, we need to take a transformative approach. This perspective entails reviewing also rights that any initiative promotes or curtails. Aligning AJS Mechanisms and Judiciary to the Constitution of Kenya (2010) and The Judiciary’s Blueprint for Sustaining Judicial Transformation TASK FORCE ON THE TR ADITIONAL, INFORMAL AND OTHER MECHANISMS FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN KENYA Letter of transmittal Date: Friday, 17th August, 2020 Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • The Republic of Kenya in the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi Constitutional and Human Rights Division Petition No
    THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION PETITION NO. 122 OF 2013 COALITION ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN…………..1ST PETITIONER INDEPENDENT MEDICO-LEGAL UNIT……………………..2ND PETITIONER THE KENYAN SECTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURISTS………..3RD PETITIONER PHYSICIANS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS…………………………4TH PETITIONER JWM, a female victim of Sexual and Gender Based Violence……………………………..5TH PETITIONER PKK, a female victim of Sexual and Gender Based Violence……………………………..6TH PETITIONER SMM, a female victim of Sexual and Gender Based Violence…………………………….7TH PETITIONER CNR, a female victim of Sexual and Gender Based Violence……………………………..8TH PETITIONER LGS, a female victim of Sexual and Gender Based Violence……………………………..9TH PETITIONER SKO, a female victim of Sexual and Gender Based Violence……………………………10TH PETITIONER DOJ, a male victim of Sexual and Gender Based Violence……………………………11TH PETITIONER FOO, a male victim of Sexual and Gender Based Violence……………………………12TH PETITIONER -VERSUS- THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA……………………………..1ST RESPONDENT THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA…………………………….2ND RESPONDENT THE INDEPENDENT POLICING OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY………………………………….3RD RESPONDENT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL POLICE SERVICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA………..4TH RESPONDENT THE MINISTER FOR MEDICAL SERVICES OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA…………………………….5TH RESPONDENT THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SANITATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA…………………………….6TH RESPONDENT Page 1 of 99 -AND- KENYA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION………………INTERESTED PARTY -AND- KENYA NATIONAL COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS……….…………………………...1ST AMICUS CURIAE KATIBA INSTITUTE………………………………………2ND AMICUS CURIAE THE CONSTITUTION & REFORM EDUCATION CONSORTIUM…..…………...3RD AMICUS CURIAE THE REDRESS TRUST……………………………………..4TH AMICUS CURIAE JUDGMENT The Parties 1.
    [Show full text]