LSK claims Kibaki nominees unfit for justice

　
By Peter Opiyo
President Kibaki's nominee for Chief Justice suffered credibility doubts when the Law Society of Kenya, which is the largest clientele base for Judiciary, discredited him.
Justice Alnashir Visram, whose nomination Kibaki’s allies has attributed to the fact he hails from a minority group deemed neutral in Kenya’s turbulent sea of ethnic politics was accused of perjury. LSK has written him off as unfit to preside over justice.
LSK revealed it filed a complaint in Parliament accusing the proposed Chief Justice of committing perjury in 1999, which they are now pulling out and dusting to question his integrity.
The umbrella body for Kenya lawyers yesterday presented a memorandum to Parliament’s Justice and Legal Affairs Committee questioning the judge’s professional background. He could replace Chief Justice Evan Gicheru if Parliament rules out Prime Minister Raila Odinga’s protestation he was not consulted on the final list, and determines President adhered to the Constitution when he picked the four nominees to key constitutional offices.
LSK told the committee probing the nominations of Attorney General, Director of Public Prosecutions and the CJ that Visram swore and signed an affidavit to say he had resigned from a law firm after it was sued for failing to remit proceeds from the sale of property worth Sh14.1 million.
But Justice Visram called The Standard newsroom in the evening to dismiss the allegations against him, arguing they were meant to derail his candidature for the job.
"All these things are being done to destroy my credibility and ruin my candidature for Chief Justice," said Visram, who was speaking for the first time since the controversy over his nomination broke out.
He explained the money in question went to the personal account of one of the firm’s partners, T G Bakrania. "The court in 2004-2005 ruled the partnership was not liable for the money, as it was not issued to the firm," he explained.
But LSK claims Visram was not truthful because it is in possession of documents proving the judge was still as an employee of the same firm a year later.
They argue Visram, who was appointed a judge in 2001, opted to "resign" from the firm of Veljee Devshi and Bakrania Advocates after he was listed as a defendant following the accusations they failed to remit the money from sale of property. The other defendants in the case were T G Bakrania and M Rana. "In the matter the judge has sworn an affidavit to the fact that he resigned as a partner in the law firm of Messrs Veljee Devshi & Bakrania Advocates on August 1, 1998. This contradicts the declaration accompanying application for practising certificate for the year 1998 and 1999, filed with LSK in which the judge stated that he was the employer in the said law firm," reads LSK’s memorandum.

Justice Alnashir Visram

Questions raised
LSK says that Visram had informed the court hearing civil case No 538 of 1999 that he had resigned from the law firm in 1998, but LSK says in 1999 Visram had applied for a renewal of a certificate of practice, saying he was an employee of the same firm.
"That I had joined the partnership on January 1, 1996, and resigned as a partner on August 1, 1998, and both first and second defendants accepted my resignation and released me from all obligations and benefits of the partnership as of that date," Visram said, when he swore an affidavit dated February 18, 2005.
LSK Chief Executive Officer, Apollo Mboya, yesterday said: "It would not serve the country right when we have somebody who gives conflicting information in an affidavit. This is a criminal offence and amounts to perjury."
LSK also raised questions about Kibaki’s choice for Director of Public Prosecution Kioko Kilukumi, who it says was among six lawyers who were paid for services they rendered to the State in a questionable manner. The lawyers’ body argued the voucher used to process payment, was signed twice by Solicitor General Wanjuki Muchemi in the two places that are supposed to be signed by different people. "The payment voucher was signed by Mr Wanjuki Muchemi, Solicitor General as a signatory as the accounting officer and holder of authority to incur expenditure, which is contravention of the Government financial regulations," states the memorandum, Mboya signed.
The hurdle facing Visram and Kilukumi emerged on the day House Speaker Kenneth Marende declared a court ruling that says the nominations were unconstitutional would not stop Parliament from discussing the matter. Marende also ruled it would be shameful for Parliament if its committees were blocked from probing the issue, which has generated great public interest.
This paved the way for the continued probe of the nominations that have strained relations between the President and the PM. The two House committees yesterday asked they be allowed to report their findings to the House on Tuesday. The request was granted to the Justice Committee and the one on Finance, which is probing the nomination of William Kirwa as Controller of Budget.
Double standards
The complaints from LSK came also as Justice Mutula Kilonzo, argued MPs would be applying double standards by trying to block Visram’s nomination on the basis he is yet to be vetted.
The same House had earlier cleared Justice Riaga Omolo, Justice Isaac Lenaola, and Magistrate Emily Ominde to sit in the Judicial Service Commission. The commission is tasked with recommending new judges, before they are vetted. Mutula, however, said Kibaki and Raila should have involved JSC in the search for a new CJ. Mutula was testifying before the Finance Committee, Nambale MP, Chris Okemo, chairs.
In its memorandum, LSK also held the payments to Kilukumi and the other lawyers were suspect because the documents did not indicate how the lawyers were to share the money. The voucher is dated November 11, 2005. "The said payment was for six advocates and there is no evidence of the amount of payment each received since the payment was done to one advocate for distribution to others for reasons that are yet to be explained," indicates the memorandum.
In a letter to Solicitor General, Kilukumi instructed that the payments be channelled through Waweru Gatonye Advocates.
The body states that the issues they have raised in the memorandum can only be canvassed if there is public participation in the process.
The two committees that were to table their reports yesterday would now do so on Tuesday, next week. During the proceedings of the Justice Committee yesterday, MPs took to task members of the JSC who testified to reveal whether Gicheru had chaired a meeting at which the group adopted the position the nominations were illegal.