Wakoli Bifwoli

All parliamentary appearances

Entries 401 to 410 of 1331.

• 7 Jul 2010 in National Assembly: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to answer. (a) Yes, I am aware of the judgment; (b) There has been a delay caused by the advocates in not getting the relevant documentation such as certified copy of the decree and certificate of costs, and partly, by the Office of the President who have not paid in spite of numerous reminders; (c) In addition to letters written by my officers asking the Office of the President to pay, I have personally written to the relevant office to pay. We have also sent circulars and held seminars to impress upon the accounting officers ... view
• 7 Jul 2010 in National Assembly: Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is not necessary to amend that section. In fact, the law provides for a procedure of executing the decrees against the Government and the procedure is to apply for the order of mandamus to be directed to the Accounting Officer of the Ministry directing that Accounting Officer to pay the decretory amount. If the Accounting Officer does not pay the decretory amount, then he is committed to civil jail. This has worked in many cases. view
• 7 Jul 2010 in National Assembly: I agree with my learned friend that successful litigants do not have to beg. That is what my office clearly communicates, as I stated in the reply, in a number of circulars, written to all the accounting officers. We have impressed upon them to pay promptly. For example, in the circular that I sent out on 29th June, 2005, paragraph N which deals with settlement of awards and judgments; we advised client Ministries that they should ensure that judgments are settled promptly to avoid accruing interest. If I may take this opportunity, because this is a problem that we have ... view
• 7 Jul 2010 in National Assembly: Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Attorney General is the principal legal advisor to the Government, the Government includes Parliament. I am advising Parliament that maybe in future, they should be directing these Questions to the Ministries concerned, so that they can come and explain to the House why they have not paid. view
• 1 Jul 2010 in National Assembly: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to make a Ministerial Statement requested by hon. Olago Aluoch on the acquittal of Edward Kirui, who had been charged with murder arising out of the post-election violence. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, Edward Kirui was arraigned in court, before Justice Muga Apondi, on 8th February, 2008, and charged with the offence of murder in two counts, contrary to Section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The trial commenced before Justice Mutungi, as he then was, on 9th April, 2008. Evidence was recorded from 19 witnesses before he retired from the ... view
• 1 Jul 2010 in National Assembly: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the substance of the evidence, which formed the bedrock of the prosecution case, was recognition, identification, opportunity and recovery of the murder weapon from the accused. The accused himself had testified that he was issued with the firearm AK47 Rifle of Body Parts No.08378, which had subsequently been re-issued to him on a regular basis. view
• 1 Jul 2010 in National Assembly: He testified that on 16th January, 2008 he had been issued with the same rifle from the armoury and was in the group led by Office Commanding Station (OCS) Chief Inspector, Handset Kaloki. In its judgment on page 75, the court noted as follows:- view
• 1 Jul 2010 in National Assembly: “I do find the offence committed was murder” The court made the following finding which is critical on page 80 which says:- view
• 1 Jul 2010 in National Assembly: “In light of those questions, even though, all other evidence adduced shows that the accused was positively identified at the scene of the shooting incident and even though he was captured on film as he appeared to shoot the two victims, this court is unable to reconcile those facts with the findings by the fire-arm examiner who concluded that the bullet was discharged from a gun that was different from the one which the accused had.” view
• 1 Jul 2010 in National Assembly: The acquittal of the accused was predicated on the apparent confusion of the number of the gun issued to the accused which was AK 47 rifle of body parts No.08378 and Serial No.23008378 as stated by the accused and serjeant-in-charge of the armoury, Serjeant Serem while the fire-arm examiner examined AK 47 rifle Serial No.3008378. This is the rifle which was used to fire the bullet which had been recovered from the body of the deceased, George William Onyango. He came to the conclusion that there were two different guns being referred to. The gun with Serial No.23008378 which was ... view