oleh admin | Mar 30, 2025 | crimes, criminal cases, judiciaries, politics, politics and law
In celebration of Eid Al-Fitr, King Mohammed VI has issued a royal pardon for 1,533 people who were sentenced by different courts throughout the country, as stated by the Ministry of Justice in an official announcement.
Out of those granted pardon, 1,203 individuals are still serving their time in prison, whereas 299 have been released. The act of mercy encompasses various measures such as reducing sentences, granting full or partial pardons, and converting life terms into fixed durations for selected inmates.
Furthermore, 31 prisoners who were found guilty of extremism and terrorism-related crimes have received pardons from the king after they pledged allegiance to national values, disavowed extremist ideologies, and revised their belief systems.
oleh admin | Mar 27, 2025 | judiciaries, news, politics, politics and government, politics and law
-
Raphael Tuju, who previously served as the secretary general of the Jubilee Party, now criticizes the Judiciary for attempting to silence him in a major property dispute involving billions of shillings.
-
The judiciary charged Tuju with violating the sub judice rule by pursuing the case through the press.
-
Nevertheless, Tuju in his strongly worded letter sent also to Chief Justice Martha Koome, stated that the Judiciary’s statement was intended to keep the issue hidden from the public.
Former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju has addressed a statement released by the Judiciary and the Eastern Africa Development Bank, following their accusation that he made statements to the public regarding issues currently before the courts.
In a brief statement, Tuju redirected the criticism towards the Supreme Court judges, alleging that they established a precedent by addressing issues currently pending in court.
“If I am to be held accountable for violating the rule of sub judice, I would be happy to share the dock with the Supreme Court judges who, in fact, violated the sub judice rules in the first place. As for myself, I have remained silent since filing the case against the SCOK judges at the JSC last April. It was only after these judges publicly commented on the matter that I exercised my right to respond,” he stated.
He criticized the judicial system for not addressing the conduct of two Supreme Court justices who allegedly first brought these issues into the spotlight through their courtroom activities and public talks in Meru and various other places, events that received extensive media coverage.
Tuju similarly placed both the Judiciary and the bank under scrutiny for purportedly attempting to prevent the media from covering the matter.
I don’t believe you’ll manage to silence the press on issues that have already reached the courts. Don’t even consider trying to scare me. Since 2019, EADB has received positive coverage from the media. The organization hired an expensive public relations firm based in Nairobi, spending considerable amounts of taxpayers’ money to promote their viewpoint consistently, frequently securing prominent placement for these stories.
What has changed now is that they have started complaining. Being a law-abiding citizen of Kenya, I must follow the law,” he stated.
Tuju is anticipated to appear at the Milimani Law Courts on Friday morning, March 28, for the hearing of a case related to petitions contesting the dismissal of Supreme Court judges.
Today, the Judiciary, via Paul Ndemo, released a statement condemning Tuju for reportedly discussing the details of a case he is involved in concerning a legal disagreement about his KSh 5 billion property in Karen following a failed loan transaction.
“The Judiciary has acknowledged recent media interviews and public comments from Hon. Raphael Tuju concerning the legal disputes involving Dari Limited. The case between Dari Limited and the East African Development Bank (EADB) has faced litigation across various courts and regions,” as stated by the Judiciary release.
Earlier, Tuju claimed that high-ranking judicial authorities worked together with an EADB official to falsely implicate him in the case.
He revealed that he had lodged complaints with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) against five Supreme Court judges who had backed Okwara’s affidavits, subsequently exposed as fake. The JSC is scheduled to examine these accusations made against the judges.
In July 2020, Tuju spent KSh 50 million to protect his prized Karen property from being sold off at an auction by EADB.
The lender took legal action in a London courtroom and secured rulings to seize the assets after Tuju and his firm, Dari Limited, were deemed to be in default of a loan agreement.
Despite this, the previous CS challenged the decision in a Kenyan courtroom and managed to secure an injunction stopping the lender and designated receivers from seizing the asset.
oleh admin | Mar 27, 2025 | business, controversies, courts, criminal cases, judiciaries
The High Court at Nairobi’s Milimani Commercial Courts rejected a case brought forth by Davidson Ivusa against Safaricom Limited.
Ivusa alleged that Safaricom took his groundbreaking “Jichomoe” idea, claiming this was the inspiration behind their popular Reverse Call Feature.
The ruling, issued by Judge F.G. Mugambi on February 27, 2025, concluded a legal dispute that started in April 2021.
The lawsuit filed by the plaintiff against Safaricom
Davidson Ivusa, the claimant, initiated lawsuit number Civil Case E562 of 2021 on April 20, 2021. He sought various forms of relief against Safaricom, such as an order to prevent the firm from utilizing or promoting its Reverse Call service. Additionally, he requested compensation for breaches of confidence, misrepresentation, and lost commercial prospects.
Ivusa asserted that he presented a submission to Safaricom on May 10, 2010, under the title “Jichomoe.” He explained this as an answer designed to help Safaricom subscribers place calls irrespective of their economic limitations.
He claimed that the firm maintained his concept under examination for an extended period, continually assuring him of their consideration, before eventually debuting a remarkably comparable feature, the Safaricom Reverse Call Service, on June 18, 2019, without including or consulting him.
Ivusa contended that this was a violation of trust and charged Safaricom with appropriating his idea and presenting it as their own creation.
Safaricom’s defense
In their defense statement submitted on January 17, 2022, Safaricom refuted Ivusa’s claims, stating that its Reverse Call Service was a distinct invention created in June 2018 and introduced on April 26, 2019.
The firm stated that the service was created to cater to the requirements of subscribers who couldn’t make calls because they lacked sufficient airtime. It enabled them to start reverse calls using a specific code.
The telecoms company highlighted that reverse call technology wasn’t new, having preceded Ivusa’s suggestion and being present in different formats long before mobile communications were common.
Safaricom emphasized notable distinctions between its offering and Jichomoe: whereas the Reverse Call Service only covers voice calls, Jichomoe includes voice calls, text messaging, and mobile internet. It operates as an installed module within handsets instead of being a network-based feature.
What was the outcome of the lawsuit involving Safaricom?
Judge Mugambi’s ruling tackled three main points: whether Safaricom violated a trust, if it had misappropriated Ivusa’s concept, and whether Ivusa was justified in seeking the remedies proposed.
The court discovered no proof of a clear pact or shared comprehension between the involved parties. It highlighted that Ivusa’s presentation of the Jichomoe idea was unrequested, with nothing suggesting that Safaricom consented to keep it confidential or utilize it for his advantage.
Regarding the allegation of passing off, where one entity falsely presents another’s goods as their own, the court necessitated that Ivusa demonstrate that Jichomoe possessed goodwill and brand recognition. Additionally, Ivusa needed to show that Safaricom’s services were misleading about their source and that this misrepresentation caused damage to Ivusa.
Mugambi stated that Ivusa did not provide any proof of Jichomoe’s market position, brand awareness, or financial harm resulting from Safaricom’s activities.
Even though Ivusa didn’t directly accuse anyone of copyright infringement, the court examined whether his intellectual property had been violated. According to Kenya’s Copyright Act, software receives protection as a form of literary work; however, this law safeguards only the expression of an idea rather than the concept itself.
The court determined that since Jichomoe did not provide concrete details like source code or prototypes, Ivusa was unable to demonstrate that Safaricom had replicated his distinctive creation instead of separately devising a comparable idea.
Justice Mugambi dismissed the suit with costs awarded to Safaricom after finding no merit with the lawsuits claims.
oleh admin | Mar 24, 2025 | crime, judiciaries, news, politics and government, politics and law
ABUJA – The Centre for Judicial Integrity (CJI) has requested that both the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) look into allegations regarding an attempted bribery involving 500 million naira from the Benue State government aimed at influencing members of the National Judicial Council (NJC).
A leading civil society group called the CJI, which focuses on enhancing transparency and accountability within Nigeria’s judiciary, has expressed significant reservations regarding the reported payments and their possible impact on the nation’s judicial integrity.
Earlier this week, when addressing journalists, the Chief Justice of Nigeria insisted that both anti-corruption bodies conduct comprehensive investigations into the allegation. He cautioned that should these claims be substantiated, they could pose a severe risk to the integrity of the Nigerian judicial system. Additionally, the organization has urged for an urgent examination of the conditions related to the suspected transaction to guarantee fairness and maintain the independence of the judiciary against outside pressures.
On Monday, Mr. Solomon Adodo, who leads the Campaign for Judicial Integrity (CJI), spoke to journalists in Abuja and made severe accusations. He alleged that some officials appointed by the Benue State government had misappropriated more than ₦500 million with the intention of influencing the National Judicial Council (NJC) decision concerning the ousting of the state’s Chief Judge, Honorable Justice Maurice Ikpambese.
Mr. Adodo claims that a substantial part of the supposed funds were channeled through three officials from Benue State. These individuals have allegedly taken multiple journeys to Abuja, seemingly aiming to sway the NJC’s decisions by interacting with prominent judicial personalities.
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) has condemned the behavior of government officials, cautioning that their conduct highlights a troubling lack of understanding regarding fundamental governance principles, notably the necessity to safeguard entities such as the judicial system from being influenced by politics.
The Chief Justice of India additionally asserted having insider information indicating that some members of the National Judicial Council (NJC) had firmly rejected any monetary inducements offered by government officials. He highlighted that this unwavering commitment to resisting corruption strengthens the NJC’s credibility and reinforces public trust in the judiciary.
The Chief Justice of India further voiced worry that rather than encouraging productive discussions and efficient management, the government headed by Governor Hyacinth Alia apparently permitted the state’s legal framework to languish in inertia.
The Center emphasized that the inability to grasp the crucial function of an impartial judicial system within a democratic framework underscores the leadership’s lack of experience in managing government affairs and serving the public.
The organization urged anti-corruption bodies and pertinent officials to launch a comprehensive and open inquiry into the suspected misuse of ₦500 million, funds allegedly meant to sway matters under consideration at the National Judicial Council (NJC).
Given these circumstances, the Center encouraged the NJC to stay firm in protecting the judiciary from outside influence, guaranteeing that every issue concerning judicial officials is addressed without bias and strictly following constitutional guidelines.
Provided by Syndigate Media Inc. (
Syndigate.info
).
oleh admin | Mar 24, 2025 | courts, judiciaries, news, politics, politics and law
On Monday (today), a larger bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) will reconvene hearings for over 20 cases linked to meetings involving Imran Khan. This expanded panel, led by Acting Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar along with Justices Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Azam Khan, will continue their proceedings. At the previous session, Adiala Jail Superintendent Abdul Ghafoor Anjum testified before the court asserting that Khan had received unscheduled visits exceeding the guidelines set forth in the jail manual.
In response, the IHC bench instructed the jail authorities to submit a comprehensive report and asked them to explain the protocols observed during these visits. Concerning this issue, the Acting Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) established a broader panel to examine matters associated with interactions between officials and PTI leader Imran Khan at Adiala Jail.
Previously, a divisional bench presided over by Judge Dogar ruled that all cases pertaining to encounters with Imran Khan should be combined into one case file and addressed collectively before a larger tribunal. This directive was delivered when the bench considered a plea submitted by Adiala Jail’s acting warden, Abdul Ghafoor Anjum, requesting the amalgamation of various lawsuits concerning Imran Khan’s visitations.
The prison official filed the application via legal representative Naveed Malik, asserting that standard operating procedures for such meetings had been finalized within internal appeals; however, numerous separate panels continued to handle analogous requests.
He argued that the superintendent, who oversees thousands of inmates, must appear before the IHC five days each week, emphasizing that consolidating cases was crucial for improving efficiency. The petitioner pointed out numerous outstanding petitions concerning Khan’s visiting privileges, along with contradictory rulings from various courts regarding this matter.
He argued, “To maintain judicial coherence, it is crucial for all interconnected cases to be combined before either a unified or an expanded panel. This ensures consistent rulings and facilitates the proper implementation of legal instructions.” Anjum stated further, “Denying this plea will lead to irreversible damage to the petitioner and undermine the smooth management of correctional facilities.”
Superintendent Anjum clarified that Khan was provided accommodations according to established protocols outlined in March 2024. These included scheduled meetings with attorneys, relatives, and acquaintances twice weekly. Additionally, he mentioned that Khan could occasionally communicate via WhatsApp calls with his children based on compassionate considerations. Furthermore, Khan enjoyed access to all benefits afforded by the Pakistan Prison Rules of 1978.
He additionally mentioned that the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) were revised in November 2024, stipulating that the petitioner—the superintendent—must obtain the list of visitors directly from Khan. This requirement was adhered to by the relevant authorities as well.
The petition asserted, “As per Article 5 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, every executive and judicial authority holds an unbreakable obligation to adhere to the Constitution and statutory laws.”
The presence of numerous comparable appeals concerning Respondent No. 1’s visiting privileges before various divisions of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and the delivery of inconsistent rulings have posed significant challenges and ambiguity for the prison authorities,” argued the petitioner. Consequently, he requested that these connected cases be assigned to one unified division or an enlarged panel within this court to guarantee consistent judgment and efficient enforcement of legal directives in the pursuit of fairness.
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc.
Syndigate.info
).
