Private Legal Practitioner, Justice Srem-Sai has said the conduct of Kenyan President, William Kipchirchir Samoei Arap Ruto amidst a deadly protest should serve as a lesson to the president of Ghana, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.
According to him, President Ruto didn’t not use his Executive powers to ensure that the 2024 Finance Bill is passed but he considered the cry of the citizens and listened to them and refused to sign the Bill.
President Ruto in his address said he will not sign the 2024 Finance Bill and that the Bill should be withdrawn following a protest that caused several destructions.
“Consequently, having reflected on the continuing conversation around the content of Finance Bill 2024, and listen keenly to the people of Kenya, who have say they want nothing to do with these Finance Bill 2024, I concede, and therefore, I will not sign the 2024 Finance Bill and it shall subsequently be withdrawn and I have agreed with these members that that become our collective position” Ruto said.
Reacting to this, Justice Srem-Sai said “Kenya is teaching our President something very basic once again – the proper way to veto a bill. Rule of law.”
“Ruto could have questioned the quorum and other internal parliamentary procedural matters which went into passing the bill. He could have, nicodemusly, caused a writ to be issued in the Supreme Court, got an injunction, and “waited” FOREVER for the Court’s opinion on the validity of the bill. He could have taken to his heels to evade service of the bill from Parliament altogether; and, on top of that, caused his Attorney-General to write a long letter to threaten Parliament to desist from further service attempts. But he’s no drama king.” He wrote in a statement.
BELOW IS THE FULL STATEMENT
Kenya is teaching our President something very basic once again – the proper way to veto a bill. Rule of law.
Ruto could have questioned the quorum and other internal parliamentary procedural matters which went into passing the bill. He could have, nicodemusly, caused a writ to be issued in the Supreme Court, got an injunction, and “waited” FOREVER for the Court’s opinion on the validity of the bill. He could have taken to his heels to evade service of the bill from Parliament altogether; and, on top of that, caused his Attorney-General to write a long letter to threaten Parliament to desist from further service attempts. But he’s no drama king.
So, what did he do? He simply complied with the supreme law of Kenya by: (1) accepting service of the bill, (2) indicating clearly that he has refused to assent to it, (3) stating the clauses that he objects to – “all the clauses”, (4) giving reasons for his objection – “widespread expression of dissatisfaction by members of the public”, and (5) doing all this with the constitutionally stipulated timelines. Simple. No writs. No legal arguments on tv or radio. No name-calling. Three pages – one, two, three pages.
See, it is not always the Constitution o. Sometime, it is the human being who operates the Constitution. Democracy can be less stressful.
Source: Elvisanokyenews.com
