π¨ WORLD CUP 2026! π²π½πΊπΈπ¨π¦
Unforgettable moment for Norway today as they qualified for the Round of 32 in VIKING style. π³π΄π£
π¨| SHOCKING MOMENT AT THE FIFA WORLD CUP! π€―π
Miguel AlmirΓ³n became the first player ever to be sent off for ππππππππ his mouth while speaking to an opposition player during a confrontation. π³π₯
Our flying car fleet has successfully completed test flights at XPENG Guangzhou base. This milestone follows batch trial production, demonstrating advanced manufacturing consistency and synchronized flight-control capability.
GI raises a valid point...the rule of law comes to a cul de sac when the citizenry don't trust their courts. I have endlessly cried that we are doomed as a country if we don't chase away JurisPESA judges...In Allah's name let us chase them away!
π Referee announced for 2026 #SuperCup!
We're pleased to share that Somali referee Omar Artan will officiate the highly anticipated match between PSG and Aston Villa in Salzburg.
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.
"The banks wanted to kill M-Pesa. But wherever you go they say Kenya has done so well in digital...
If we can reform to make the cost of money cheap, to reduce the cost of transactions, then we can do even better."
- Former CBK Governor Micah Cheserem
Video: CBK
Mambo imechemka hapa, Hawa sharp Chinese boys walichukua Uber na kupin wrong destination. Sasa wanataka wapelekwe to the right destination without paying any additional fare. Nani mwenye makosa hapa?
HR: We lost another senior employee today.
CEO: What happened?
HR: He resigned after receiving an external offer.
CEO: That makes no sense. We could have matched it.
HR: That is the issue. We were willing to pay a stranger 70% more for the same role, but would not give our existing employee even a 20% raise.
CEO: External hiring is different. That is market pricing.
HR: He noticed that too.
CEO: We appreciated his loyalty. He had been here for years.
HR: Yes. And during those years, he consistently exceeded expectations while being told to βwait for the next review cycle.β
CEO: But budgets are complicated for internal employees.
HR: Apparently not for external candidates. The new hire budget was approved in three days. His raise request sat for eight months.
CEO: We had to stay competitive in the hiring market.
HR: He was part of that same market. The only difference is that another company valued him before we did.
CEO: So he left over salary?
HR: Not just salary. He left because he realized loyalty was being rewarded less than leaving.
CEO: That is unfortunate.
HR: Yes. Companies will sometimes trust a candidate after a 45-minute interview more than an employee who already proved themselves for five years.
CEO: So what are you saying?
HR: If companies only recognize employee value after a resignation letter appears, then eventually employees will stop waiting to be appreciated internally.
Sometimes the fastest way for an employee to get market value is to stop being your employee.