kimani

[BRAVIN YURI @BravinYuri]

State House Girls’ High School has asked parents to collect their children/students over concerns of unrest.

[Daily Nation @NationAfrica]

Ebola protests: Police use water cannons to disperse protesters in Nanyuki

[Kenyans.co.ke @Kenyans]

Ksh50 million awarded to me is an insult to my fundamental rights and freedoms - Rigathi

[nairobi.exposed @NairobiExposed]

Nanyuki Ebola Protests.

He waited for the perfect moment and the siaka!

[IVY @ivymuthe]

In the streets of Nanyuki, a solitary protester appeared — not in the usual jeans and T-shirt, but sealed head-to-toe in full white protective gear, the kind used for handling Ebola patients. In their hands, a simple wooden cross bearing two stark words: "REJECT EBOLA."No chants. No speeches. Just a silent, haunting figure moving through the town.This was no ordinary protest. It was performance art that cut straight through the noise. The hazmat suit declared: “This is what you want us to wear.” The cross answered: “This is the burden you’re forcing us to carry.” Together, they formed both a prayer and a warning, wrapped in sterile white plastic.Nanyuki has marched. It has held placards. It has raised the voices of grandmothers and boda boda riders. Now it speaks through a lone ghost in white — a living image of the future this town refuses to accept.The message is unmistakable: Nanyuki does not need hazmat suits for Ebola.

[Booker Ngesa Omole ☭ @BookerBiro]

BREAKING:Hooded state backed thugs are now firing live rounds at protesters in Nanyuki, assaulting journalists, and threatening to kill anyone who answers the call to reject the imperialist Ebola facility. This is not law enforcement. This is political repression.
MO Fascism 101

[steve Biko osur @wuodosur]

Why should a man eat using a spoon and a knife, when you can use a spade and a slasher😂😂😂

[The Kiambu Magazine @kiambu_magazine]

Ex DCP candidate Paul waiganjo threatens Kameme FM presenter Muthoni Wa Kirumba

[Juma G 🇰🇪 @jumaf3]

KDD297A has just hit me from behind near Mathare Mental Hospital and found his way within the traffic to disappear. He is still in this traffic jam...

[Macharia Njeru @MachariaNjeru]

The Supreme Court of Kenya in 2017 nullified the Presidential election where millions of Kenyans had voted on the basis of procedural defects. They said it didn’t matter the outcome as long as the process was tainted with irregularities and illegalities. Now in the Gachagua case the High court has taken a complete about - turn. This decision has created a very dangerous precedent.

[Vincent 🇰🇪🇰🇪🇰🇪 @VinceChepkwony]

What is this guy saying?

[denzo @ItsDenzo]

Kenya was accepting Ebola affected victims from USA while the said USA is denying VISA to African teams & referees?

[Murage Ngunjiri @jmuragengunjiri]

This morning in Olkalou, Nyandarua W/Rep Faith Gitau, had organised a women meeting in which it was only women's affair and by 6:30am women had started streaming in.

To their shock they found at the gate entrance you had to produce ID and fingers scanned on a gadget in which they resisted .

Wajinga waliisha Kenya

[Sholla Ard 🇰🇪 @sholard_mancity]

Breaking: A Kenyan court has ruled that the offence of "careless driving" no longer exists under current law.

In a landmark judgment, the High Court quashed the conviction of Daniel Mwangi Munyaka, ordered a refund of the KSh 200,000 fine he had paid, and declared the entire trial a nullity after finding he had been charged under an offence that was removed from the Traffic Act years ago.

The bigger question is this: if the law was amended in 2012, how many Kenyans have since been charged, convicted, fined, or coerced into paying penalties for an offence that no longer existed in law?

This is not just about one driver getting his money back. It raises serious concerns about prosecutions, charge sheets, legal oversight, and the administration of justice over the last decade.

For anyone convicted under "careless driving" in recent years, this ruling could have far-reaching implications.

[Ⓝⓖ'ⓞⓡⓞⓡⓘⓔⓣ🐐🇰🇪 @baroswahjr]

Student anatumia slasher kama kijiko kula ndio PS education alisema wa negotiate na walimu🤣

[Mary Njoroge @Maryian96]

Oyaaaaa....Faith Gitau Nyandarua women rep, you called these women claiming its a woman development affair, wakifika wamepata unawaitisha ID na fingerprints, why? they have now refused to enter wanapiga duru wakisema hawauzi kura hahhaa olkalao sio mbeere!!! tumue muno wakora tupu..

[I am Chege @_James041]

Gunshots, teargas and running battles in Nanyuki Town, Laikipia County as Kenyans unite against Ebola quarantine facilities across the country.

[Faith Odhiambo @FaithOdhiambo8]

Yesterday's High Court judgment on the impeachment of H.E. Rigathi Gachagua raises serious and legitimate questions that our constitutional jurisprudence must grapple with honestly. The three-judge bench found that the Senate violated the former Deputy President's right to a fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution specifically by declining to grant an adjournment when he was unable to attend the proceedings. The court acknowledged that violation, issued a declaratory order and awarded Ksh.50 million in constitutional damages. Yet the bench ultimately upheld the impeachment itself. I respect the court and the constitutional role it plays. But I believe this outcome calls for serious reflection on the coherence of our remedial framework.

The tension in the judgment lies in this, if the Senate's refusal to adjourn was a constitutional infirmity serious enough to warrant a finding of violation and a Ksh.50 million award, then the question that naturally follows is whether that infirmity was capable of tainting the entire removal process. The right to a fair hearing is not procedural decoration. It is a substantive constitutional guarantee, particularly in proceedings that result in the removal of a person from high public office. Courts must therefore grapple carefully with what it means to vindicate a right while simultaneously affirming the outcome that flowed from its violation. It is a difficult balance and I appreciate that the bench was navigating complicated constitutional terrain.

It is instructive to recall the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the landmark 2017 presidential election petition delivered by the then Chief Justice David Maraga. The court, in a 4-2 majority, nullified the presidential election not on the basis that the outcome was necessarily wrong but on the basis that the process through which it was arrived at did not conform to the Constitution and the law. The court found that irregularities and illegalities in the transmission of results had compromised the integrity of the election and that the constitutional standard required more than a plausible result, it required a process that was itself constitutionally compliant. That principle that a flawed process cannot produce a constitutionally valid outcome remains a pillar of our public law.

When we place that 2017 reasoning alongside yesterday's judgment, a legitimate concern emerges. Both cases involved constitutional violations in the course of a high-stakes removal or electoral process. In 2017, the violation of constitutional standards was sufficient to nullify the result entirely. Yesterday, a violation of the right to a fair hearing was found, remedied in damages but the result was preserved. These are not necessarily irreconcilable positions, courts do have discretion in fashioning remedies but the distinction must be clearly reasoned and transparently justified because the precedent being set will govern how future impeachments are conducted and how future courts respond to violations within those processes.

My concern is about the precedent this decision may establish. If a constitutional violation during impeachment proceedings can be remedied by damages without disturbing the outcome, future Parliaments and Senates may not feel the full weight of their constitutional obligations when handling removal proceedings. The court itself noted the urgent need for Parliament to enact a dedicated statutory framework under Article 150 governing the removal of a Deputy President which is a legislative gap that should never have existed this long. That recommendation must not be ignored. A constitutional democracy is built on the integrity of its processes not merely its outcomes. We must ensure that the right to a fair hearing in Kenya remains substantive and not merely symbolic.

[Javas Bigambo @Javasbigambo]

The substantive fact of law is that @rigathi Gachagua's impeachment is cemented and may remain as such. The path ahead is slippery and no court will create a constitutional hermaphrodite by reverting to status quo ante.

[Migai Akech @MigaiAkech]

Quite a number contradictions in the high court judgment. Surely, its finding that Gachagua was not given a fair hearing vitiates the Senate's vote to uphold the impeachment. And is the court now saying Gachagua is free to vie for public office?