By NATION TEAM newsdesk@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted Friday, February 3 2012 at 20:32
Posted Friday, February 3 2012 at 20:32
The High Court ruling stopping any further public discussions on whether ICC suspects Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto can contest the presidency has elicited mixed reactions.
On Friday, the Media Council of Kenya said the court’s decision had gone against the freedom of expression as stated in the Constitution.
The council’s chief executive, Prof Levi Obonyo, said that while it would be important for court cases to go on without influence from the media or public, such a decision should never have gagged people’s expressions.
“While we pronounce our faith in the judicial system and the right to guarantee fair hearing for the accused, it is our hope that this process will still uphold the freedom of speech and expression of all Kenyans as provided for in law,” said Prof Obonyo in a statement.
On Wednesday, the High Court gagged discussions on the topic until a case filed by civil society groups seeking an interpretation on whether the two can still contest is heard and determined. (READ: Court bars debate over whether ICC pair will run for presidency)
But the media council said the court banked on an archaic common law called sub-judice which would seem to contradict the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.
Moreover, Prof Obonyo said, it might be difficult to keep the order, especially in this Internet era where discussions might still go on in the blogsphere.
“The question must be asked whether, in the digital era, the sub- judice rule should continue to be observed in Kenya with the same stringency that it was upheld a century ago in England,” he said.
The chairman of the Editors Guild Mr Macharia Gaitho, said while they appreciate the principle of sub-judice on any matter before the court, they harbour concern that a court would issue an order that amounted to a generalised gag ruling on a matter of great public importance.
“The laws of Kenya and the Constitution of Kenya are very clear on the rights that cannot be abridged by any authorities,” he said. “These include the freedom of expression and freedom of the media.”
Law Society of Kenya chairman Kenneth Akide said Mr Justice Isaac Lenaola got it wrong on the ruling. He said the ruling was tantamount to an attempt by the court to gag Kenyans.
Mr Akide said Kenyans were free to discuss anything on their destiny and it was not for the court to tell them what to and not to discuss.
“The ruling strikes me as very strange. How do you gag the people from engaging in public discourse, especially now when they are looking forward to a General Election soon?” asked Mr Akide.
Presidential aspirants
Mars Group chief executive officer Mwalimu Mati supported the judge’s decision. He said for the last few days, the two presidential aspirants, who were recently committed to trial by the International Criminal Court, were whipping up emotions in their prayer meetings.
“I know there are many Kenyans who would like to ventilate their opinions on this, but, the feeling is the two have been bullying the nation over their presidential ambitions, even when the matter was in court,” said Mr Mati.
Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution chairman Charles Nyachae said he would give his views after familiarising himself with the ruling.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment