In Summary
  • We should wait for the judgment so as to examine their legal reasoning, and measure it against some objective parameters.
  • We give the same nominal value to court decisions and widespread social opinions. We also easily confuse institutions and actors.
  • If I like the Court’s decision, then the Court is good and the judges are heroes. If I do not like it the judges are goons and not only the Supreme Court is useless but the Constitution too, for it created a useless court.

It was 6-0, like those bad soccer matches between Manchester City and Crystal Palace, Barcelona and Alavés.

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the validity of our October elections. Did the Court make the right decision?

Court decisions are always disgustingly annoying to the losing party. Why would the Supreme Court do that? Is this consistent with their September judgment?

Could the judges have been threatened or coerced to comply with the government, or did they just suffer from a guilty feeling of having nullified a valid August election?

Maina Kiai had put it in clear terms. He said “If the court is consistent, the October elections will be nullified.”

Was the court consistent? Could there be a legal consistency which is opposed to a political or contextual consistency?

It appears to me that the Court may have looked at the issue from a holistic point of view. In any case, we should wait for the judgment so as to examine their legal reasoning, and measure it against some objective parameters.

Today, there is a great deal of confusion in our public discourse about opinions, decisions and institutions. We give the same nominal value to court decisions and widespread social opinions. We also easily confuse institutions and actors.

If I like the Court’s decision, then the Court is good and the judges are heroes. If I do not like it the judges are goons and not only the Supreme Court is useless but the Constitution too, for it created a useless court.

If the judges change their stand, they were bought or coerced. If I win the elections, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) is fair. If I lose, IEBC is unfair.

Social media has added fuel to the flames, and the vestiges of any possible objectivity has evaporated thanks to fake news.

Truth be told, there are serious problems with our electoral commission. It would be insincere to deny this fact. But can we have clean elections in such a corrupt environment? IEBC spent billions to close all the leaks, but not all gaps can be sealed because of the perverted human brain.

We are high on law and low on trust. We have all the laws in place but we have lost all trust in peoples, honesty and institutional integrity.

Kenya is not alone in this. The misapplication of Einstein’s relativity theory to the moral and ethical sphere triggered an interesting phenomenon.

DICTATORSHIP OF RELATIVISM

Albert Mohler says that the cultural impact of Einstein’s theory extended far beyond the laboratory or the science classroom. As the twentieth century unfolded, Mohler argues, “Einstein’s theory of relativity quickly became a symbol and catalyst for something very different — the development of moral relativism.”

Page 1 of 2