PUBLICATION NOT DONE BY THE ACCUSED
kutoka court of appeal in CAG judgement
Before, we pen off, we wish to briefly address the alleged failure to advert on the 1st respondent's statement made during swearing in of the 3rd respondent. This complaint shall not detain us much, as correctly submitted by Ms. Method, the appellant failed to bring any cogent evidence to prove that the 1st respondent made statements that undermined the constitutional principles, rights, or the office of the CAG. The cutting of the newspaper articles attached to the affidavit in support of the petition and marked as annexures ZZK-3 were not published by the 1st respondent
Therefore, the 1st respondent cannot be held liable for publications that he did not make - see the case of Permanent Secretary (Establishments) & Another v. Hilal Hamed Rashid & 4 Others (supra).
Further, even if we were to assume that the 1st respondent stated that "the owner o f the government is around” the constitutional effect of such a remark cannot, with certainty, be said to have undermined or impaired the supremacy and independence of the office of the CAG as enshrined under Articles 143 and 144 of the Constitution. We strongly believe that cogent evidence is required to affirm and vindicate constitutional principles, and such proof cannot rest merely on newspaper cuttings; not every remark, however ill-considered, amounts to a violation of constitutional principles or compromises public confidence in the office of the CAG
wanasheria hii kitu inaoana na ile ya LISU kuwa he did not publish the words he said! It is Jamno Tv who published the same
kutoka court of appeal in CAG judgement
Before, we pen off, we wish to briefly address the alleged failure to advert on the 1st respondent's statement made during swearing in of the 3rd respondent. This complaint shall not detain us much, as correctly submitted by Ms. Method, the appellant failed to bring any cogent evidence to prove that the 1st respondent made statements that undermined the constitutional principles, rights, or the office of the CAG. The cutting of the newspaper articles attached to the affidavit in support of the petition and marked as annexures ZZK-3 were not published by the 1st respondent
Therefore, the 1st respondent cannot be held liable for publications that he did not make - see the case of Permanent Secretary (Establishments) & Another v. Hilal Hamed Rashid & 4 Others (supra).
Further, even if we were to assume that the 1st respondent stated that "the owner o f the government is around” the constitutional effect of such a remark cannot, with certainty, be said to have undermined or impaired the supremacy and independence of the office of the CAG as enshrined under Articles 143 and 144 of the Constitution. We strongly believe that cogent evidence is required to affirm and vindicate constitutional principles, and such proof cannot rest merely on newspaper cuttings; not every remark, however ill-considered, amounts to a violation of constitutional principles or compromises public confidence in the office of the CAG
wanasheria hii kitu inaoana na ile ya LISU kuwa he did not publish the words he said! It is Jamno Tv who published the same
