Dear All, I support the merger of section 7 and 10 . They lead to the same thing. On tenure of office, the council members term should be limited to two. The chairmanship can also be limited to 2 especially if the council will be mandated to elect it's chair because they can vote him/ her out after the first term and it will provide good continuity since they will still be members of the council. The council should vote by secret ballot. Good weekend Racheal Sent from my iPhone On Jan 28, 2011, at 4:33 PM, ERICK ngaira <erickngaira@gmail.com> wrote: Dear All, I agree Section 7 and 10 are more or less a duplication, and should be merged for clarity. In regard to tenure of members , It should only be for a mximun of two terms and a new chair should be elected every term. Election should be by secret ballot by the Council Members. Regards. On 28 January 2011 16:00, Solomon Mburu Kamau <solo.mburu@gmail.com> wrote: Listers, There is a duplicate between Article 7 & Article 10 of the Bill. Article 7, provides for the qualification of Chair and other Members of the Council, while Article 10, in a way, provides for the requirements for appointment to the commission. They, as Toby has said, should perhaps be merged. On the question off tenure of the office of Council members, my opinion is they should only be allowed a re-appointment for one morer term to avoid domination and 'over-stays'. Further, the Bill does not provide for the procedures of the election of members apart from the chair. Will they be appointed by the JSC, CJ, KUJ etc? Will the election by proxy, acclamation or secret ballot? I think in line with democratic principles, they should be elected from among the membership sitting at the Council, like what LSK does. To another view, the government reserved a third of positions in public bodies to women. Therefore, does this mean out of the seven members appointed (Article 6), three should be women? If so, just wondering, will the other interested groups - the disabled, marginalized, youth etc - be considered? Nice weekend. On 28/01/2011, toby@law-democracy.org <toby@law-democracy.org> wrote:

Hi all,

I hope you will not mind if I make a few comments on yesterday's discussion before moving on to the topic of today. Sorry to be late again, but I'm sort of in transit (actually, I spent 12 hours in plane yesterday, only to return to my starting point because we could not land at the destination!).

The Bill does provide for the appointment of the Chair (section 8(6 or really (7)), but I agree that it would be preferable for the group to appoint its own Chair and this is a common practice.

A few comments on the debate about independence, on the one hand, and the role of the judiciary, on the other. I am very sensitive to Lydia's point about capture of these bodies by government and of course the Rwandan Council is a disaster on this point. But to be honest, that was one area where I felt this draft Bill was pretty good. Of course its independence rests heavily on the independence of the judicial bodies and individuals involved, but otherwise, it does have reasonably robust systems, including the ability of anyone, or any group, to nominate and then the shortlisting by the appointing Committee (although I would remove the representatives from the Ministry of Justice and State Law Office from this Committee and replace them with more independent people, probably not from the media, since the other three members are already media representatives). So I see the approach as a bit of a trade-off: perhaps excessive role for the judiciary v. relatively strong guarantees of independence. I note that the role of the JSC is simply to establish the appointing Committee. I'm not sure which other body could be trusted with this.

So, my tweaks would be to change the composition of the appointing Committee (which is the most important decision-maker in this process), allow the body to elect its own chair and remove the requirement for the chair to be eligible for appointment as a High Court judge.

On today's questions:

1) Grace is right to point out the duplication and to some extent contradiction between sections 7 and 10. Probably they should be integrated.

2) I have already commented on the Chair. I don't see a particular problem with the Chair being reappointed, but there should at least be another election.

Best, Toby

___________________________________ Toby Mendel

Centre for Law and Democracy toby@law-democracy.org Tel: +1 902 431-3688 Fax: +1 902 431-3689 www.law-democracy.org

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

This message was sent to: solo.mburu@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/solo.mburu%40gmail.com

-- Sent from my mobile device *Solomon Mbũrũ Kamau* ***************************************************** *Man is a gregarious animal and enjoys agreement as cows will graze all the same way to the side of a hill!* AND *It is better to die in dignity than in the ignominy of ambiguous generosity! * http://smiley2.wordpress.com http://mburu.sikika.co.ke _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: erickngaira@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/erickngaira%40gmail.com _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: rachealnakitare@yahoo.co.uk Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/rachealnakitare%40yahoo...