@pound, good point.
Sec 32 (2) "Every person has the right, either individually or in community withothers, in public or in private, to manifest any religion or belief throughworship, practice, teaching or observance, including observance of aday of worship.
will this allow me to start a religion called masukumanizim that worships on Mondays? will I be allowed to worship on that day that i have chosen to observe? That religion's belief is that God created the world and rested on a monday - so i should not work at all!

we had highlighted the loopholes of the treaties and international law since we are not sure who Kenya in is

@Masukuma

what would you rather they said? that you do not have a right to worship? or they list down the churches that are acceptable? Or the beliefs to be followed? And we shall be all armed to shoot it down because it "restricts" our right to worship? Sasa mtaka nini? See what i mean when i say that voting NO will never take us anywhere? we shall have issues with every clause and when are we going to please everyone?

To have a Katiba that everyone agrees with will take a minimum of a HUNDRED BILLION years.

You vote as you please!

I will not tick the box for yes, I shall write YES in caps(he he spolit vote....)

Just remember this one thing:

Baks & Rao stole millions of votes and they were in separate camps - each checking the other not to rig.

Now they sleep in the same bed.

In regards to the Kadhi courts, the common concerns I have heard raised have primarily been that people feel one religion is being favored over the others and that this could lead to the stifling of other religious freedoms as well as extremism of the "favored" religion.

Our current court system is built and borrowed from British Christian tradition and our lawyers are trained in this tradition and have no training in Islamic law or traditional law for that matter. Therefore, the same principle the courts apply when they call upon those well versed in traditional matters to help in adjudicating matters concerning traditional laws, is the same principle that the Khadis courts are established under.

Christians with personal woes go to a subordinate court which is modeled after their faith therefore those versed in Islamic law are hired by the government to adjudicate on similar issues for Muslims. Neither the Christian nor the Muslim nor the traditionalist pays for family disputes between their followers. The tax payer, who is Christian, Muslim, Traditionalist or Other, foots the bill in all these scenarios. So there is no semblance of favoritism of one religion over another.

IF YOU PREFER THE NEW CONSTITUTION TO THE OLD, ACCEPT THE NEW, VOTE "YES".

IF YOU PREFER THE OLD CONSTITUTION TO THE NEW, ACCEPT THE OLD, VOTE "NO".

Just be sure to have strong convictions of your own for whichever decision you take. Because you owe it to posterity.

Guys let's be part of the history of this great nation.

This claims of our laws being allegedly modeled on judo-christianism is nauseating.

For all I care, the laws we have are laws we have suggested to the drafters of the constitution, and the rest will be passed by parliament that we elect.

As you suggested, it would all be fine if everybody went to the same subordinate courts, then invited experts in their traditional/kadhi laws to advise the court.
That way, nobody would be complaining

@mpenzi

heard a Magistrate admit they cannot handle matters of muslim laws on such issues as marriage as compared to a christian one. They actuallly have to get a sheikh/kadhi to help out

reason being the system/school of law in such matters is more christian biased.

@masukuma....

And if the proposed constitution goes through, we still have another avenue incase the parliament decides to sneak in that "legalisation of abortion" we are all fearing.....

Right to petition Parliament
119. (1) Every person has a right to petition Parliament to consider any
matter within its authority, including to enact, amend or repeal
any legislation.
(2) Parliament shall make provision for the procedure for the
exercise of this right.

@Wendz
I can bet that the Act Parliament will pass for purposes of 'recall' will be so watered down that it will be virtually impossible to recall MPs. I simply dont trust MPs. The draft should have provided for the grounds themselves and leave out the actual procedure to be set out in an Act of Parliament.

Am voting yes. If we are to say no until we all agree then lets forget about a new katiba. Ruto and co are against it coz of land. Too much hype about abortion clause and kadhi courts.