The court exceeded its mandate and sowed more confusion:

1. By legitimizing the expectation of the media owners for a license and proceeding to grant it one uncompetitively. So, why did the const require vetting of judges who were in office by 2010? They had a legitimate expectation to continue working into pensionhood, having held  their positions for years. The pt: the constitution erased all preferential expectations and set a new standard because of grievances over legitimacy and competence of the status quo.  In the case of ICT/ broadcasting, similar questions lie over the evenness of the ground.  The "competitive" standard in the award of any public resource or positions is to address such issues.

2. By simply voiding the rights of PANG which had been issued a license pursuant to a competitive process, however conducted by an "illegal" cck, and disregarding the injustice and financial consequences of such a decision. Why uphold the rights of one party and extinguish the rights of others? The court's Sympathy only seemed to lie on one side for which it poured out its heart generously, but totally ignored the rights of Pang and its subscribers.  A middle ground position, recognizing the predicament of the current media investors and a suitable remedy to the injustice it found committed against them by cck would have sufficed to put the country on a forward footing. But this? The next Destination seems to be the Supreme Court, which am afraid is going to be choking soon with many unnecessary petitions, thanks to the court of appeal's contestable strokes of justice. Pang, a subscriber, another investors, or even "cofek's" unrecognized consumers have more than enough ground the way I see it.

3. By failing to admonish the govt for its confused policy (chaotic really) and confirming how dangerous it is to invest n this country, in ict particularly, because it has protected investors, and others are secondary regardless of the processes, which are now routinely reversed. 



This is official mail. If you doubt the content, call back on +254722517540.

On Mar 29, 2014, at 10:15 AM, Dennis Kioko <dmbuvi@gmail.com> wrote:

Very interesting Grace. 

Was the court well versed on the whole digital migration process, spectrum and the fact that spectrum is a resource that belongs to all Kenyans, and not a few organisations? 

On Saturday, 29 March 2014, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga@hotmail.com> wrote:
@Kioko, I quoted this sentence because I just didnt believe that a court of law can disregard the fact that there are rules to tendering processes. Inaonekana mambo ni yale yale!

“An independent body should therefore give them a licence without going through the tender process provided they comply with the regulations,” Mr Justice Maraga said.
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:26:13 +0300
From: dmbuvi@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [kictanet] Digital Migration Appeal Court Ruling: COFEK Response
CC: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke
To: ggithaiga@hotmail.com

The court ruling as reported in the Daily Nation article is quite confusing.

First, the court is asking the government to reimburse PANG and StarTimes for their licensing fee and investments. How much will this cost the tax payer?

Second, the court in supporting its ruling, says media owners have invested a lot and they shouldn't lose their investment. The media owners will still lose their investment as digital broadcasting is a new technology that requires new infrastructure - perhaps the only infrastructure that can be reused is the towers.

Third, is the court implying that licenses issued by CCK are unconstitutional?


On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:
Listers

Lets step back and ask a few fundamental questions:-

1. How has CAK contravened the constitution in regards to the digital migration.

2. How does this affect the country in the scheme of things in relation to the global move to digital migration.

3. How does it benefit the consumer when we continue to perpetuate a status quo in the media space where a few big boys muscle out everyone? Maybe Consumer Federation can expound on this. 

4. How can we ensure going forward that the tendering processes are air-tight and can withstand frivolous suits. In light of what happened to the laptop tender we must ask a fundamental question: 

IS THIS GOVERNMENT SETTING ITSELF UP TO FAIL IN THE OCT SECTOR? 

Ali Hussein

+254 0770 906375 / 0713 601113

Twitter: @AliHKassim

Skype: abu-jomo

LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim

Blog: www.alyhussein.com

"I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots".  ~ Albert Einstein

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 29, 2014, at 1:53 AM, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga@hotmail.com> wrote:




http://www.nation.co.ke/news/Victory-for-Kenyans-as-judges-halt-rush-to-digital-migration/-/1056/2261326/-/qc6k17z/-/index.html
“An independent body should therefore give them a licence without going through the tender process provided they comply with the regulations,” Mr Justice Maraga said.

Really? How now?

From: jgmbugua@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 23:36:37 +0300
Subject: Re: [kictanet] Digital Migration Appeal Court Ruling: COFEK Response
CC: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke
To: ggithaiga@hotmail.com







Idiocy of the highest order. There is no win here only delay of the inevitable and stifling of innovation and investment.

Multichoice is certainly a winner.

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ggithaiga%40hotmail.com The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.


--
with Regards:

blog.denniskioko.com


_______________________________________________
kictanet mailing list
kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke
https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dmakali%40yahoo.com

The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.

KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.