Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

I maintain that Kenya’s next General Election must be held in August 2026, not 2027. Article 136(2)(a) of the Constitution is explicit: a presidential election shall be held on the second Tuesday in August in every fifth year. The Constitution does not say after five years. It says in... show more

Willis Evans Otieno

107,651 subscribers

18,270 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Article 136(2)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya states: “An election of the President shall be held on the second Tuesday in August in the fifth year.” Three elements are crystal clear: "Shall" – mandatory, not discretionary. "Second Tuesday in August" – a specific day, not open to interpretation. "In the fifth year" – not before, not after.

Article 136(2)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya states: “An election of the President shall be held on the second Tuesday in August in the fifth year.” Three elements are crystal clear: "Shall" – mandatory, not discretionary. "Second Tuesday in August" – a specific day, not open to interpretation. "In the fifth year" – not before, not after.

Willis Evans Otieno

21,932 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

If Article 136(2)(a) mandates that the presidential election be held on the second Tuesday of August in every fifth year following the last election, how can anyone claim that the incumbent must first complete five full years from the date of swearing-in before an election can lawfully be held? Are we interpreting the Constitution, or rewriting it to accommodate political timelines? Look carefully at the wording. Article 136(2)(a) does not say “five years after the President is sworn in.” It establishes an election cycle tied to the last election and specifies the second Tuesday of August in the fifth year.

If Article 136(2)(a) mandates that the presidential election be held on the second Tuesday of August in every fifth year following the last election, how can anyone claim that the incumbent must first complete five full years from the date of swearing-in before an election can lawfully be held? Are we interpreting the Constitution, or rewriting it to accommodate political timelines? Look carefully at the wording. Article 136(2)(a) does not say “five years after the President is sworn in.” It establishes an election cycle tied to the last election and specifies the second Tuesday of August in the fifth year.

Willis Evans Otieno

11,290 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

The Constitution says in every fifth year — meaning inside the fifth year, not after five years, and not once every five years! The fifth year after the 2022 election is 2026, not 2027. Stop twisting plain English. The law is clear: elections are due in August 2026!

The Constitution says in every fifth year — meaning inside the fifth year, not after five years, and not once every five years! The fifth year after the 2022 election is 2026, not 2027. Stop twisting plain English. The law is clear: elections are due in August 2026!

Willis Evans Otieno

44,614 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

The Tuesday of August 2027 falls in the sixth year, not the fifth. This is a key distinction. The moment you push into August 2027, you’ve crossed into the sixth year, making any election date in that year unconstitutional under Article 136(2)(a).

The Tuesday of August 2027 falls in the sixth year, not the fifth. This is a key distinction. The moment you push into August 2027, you’ve crossed into the sixth year, making any election date in that year unconstitutional under Article 136(2)(a).

Willis Evans Otieno

13,891 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Deliberately pushing elections to 10th August 2027 means deliberately pushing the election into the sixth year. That is not a harmless calendar error. That is a deliberate attempt to subvert the constitutional order and unlawfully retain power which is treason. Nobody; President, Parliament, IEBC, political party or court has a licence to rewrite the Constitution to manufacture an extra year in office.

Deliberately pushing elections to 10th August 2027 means deliberately pushing the election into the sixth year. That is not a harmless calendar error. That is a deliberate attempt to subvert the constitutional order and unlawfully retain power which is treason. Nobody; President, Parliament, IEBC, political party or court has a licence to rewrite the Constitution to manufacture an extra year in office.

Willis Evans Otieno

11,845 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

As Co-Convenor of the People's Coalition on Electoral Reforms, I joined fellow leaders today to reaffirm a simple, non-negotiable demand: the 2027 general election, particularly the presidential election, must be held strictly in accordance with the Constitution. This process is anchored in Articles 1, 38, 81, and 86, the Elections Act, the Election Offences Act, and the jurisprudence of our courts, including the Maina Kiai case and the Supreme Court decisions of 2017 and 2022. Anything not in the Constitution cannot be allowed.

As Co-Convenor of the People's Coalition on Electoral Reforms, I joined fellow leaders today to reaffirm a simple, non-negotiable demand: the 2027 general election, particularly the presidential election, must be held strictly in accordance with the Constitution. This process is anchored in Articles 1, 38, 81, and 86, the Elections Act, the Election Offences Act, and the jurisprudence of our courts, including the Maina Kiai case and the Supreme Court decisions of 2017 and 2022. Anything not in the Constitution cannot be allowed.

David Maraga

73,753 Aufrufe • vor 4 Tagen

“We don’t think that anyone has the constitutional right to double-digit returns…it’s not in the Constitution.” Of course it doesn’t need to be in the Constitution. The Constitution is about restraining government, not about restraining profits.

“We don’t think that anyone has the constitutional right to double-digit returns…it’s not in the Constitution.” Of course it doesn’t need to be in the Constitution. The Constitution is about restraining government, not about restraining profits.

David Asman

160,532 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Francis Atwoli shares a special moment with his wife, journalist Mary Atwoli. The COTU SG, who has hinted little about retirement, is reportedly seeking a sixth term in the 2026 elections. The next national COTU polls in Kenya must be held by August 30, 2026.

Francis Atwoli shares a special moment with his wife, journalist Mary Atwoli. The COTU SG, who has hinted little about retirement, is reportedly seeking a sixth term in the 2026 elections. The next national COTU polls in Kenya must be held by August 30, 2026.

The Kenyan Vigilante

89,461 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

TREASON! Any attempt to hold a presidential election in 2027 is not just unconstitutional , it's treasonous. Article 3(2) of the Constitution makes it clear: No person may establish a government otherwise than in compliance with this Constitution.

TREASON! Any attempt to hold a presidential election in 2027 is not just unconstitutional , it's treasonous. Article 3(2) of the Constitution makes it clear: No person may establish a government otherwise than in compliance with this Constitution.

Willis Evans Otieno

20,469 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Dr. Abati: There is nowhere in the Nigerian constitution that says the president must present substantive evidence that he went to school, and the constitution does not compel him to present all his certificates. Then Rufai Oseni cuts in and asks the professor: “Sir, is there anywhere in the constitution that says that somebody who presented a document in 1999 can change that document in 2026?” Dr. Abati cuts in again and says the constitution is supreme. Professor;

Dr. Abati: There is nowhere in the Nigerian constitution that says the president must present substantive evidence that he went to school, and the constitution does not compel him to present all his certificates. Then Rufai Oseni cuts in and asks the professor: “Sir, is there anywhere in the constitution that says that somebody who presented a document in 1999 can change that document in 2026?” Dr. Abati cuts in again and says the constitution is supreme. Professor;

BLESSED 🥷

157,274 Aufrufe • vor 25 Tagen

I have listened to the debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 between legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge and political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo today on Twitter. Without any doubt, Dr Justice Mavedzenge explained, clarified, and made ordinary people understand the issues, and more importantly, in my humble view, he won the debate on whether there is need for Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 to be subjected to a referendum or not. Anything done for the people, as Prof Jonathan Moyo says these monumental amendments are, should be subjected to the people. The Constitution is not ambiguous on this. It is clear that term limits should be subjected to a referendum for any change to be done legally. Under Section 328 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, any amendment that seeks to extend the length of time a President may hold office, or to remove or alter term limits in a way that benefits an incumbent, cannot apply to the sitting President and must be subjected to constitutional safeguards. You cannot claim to be doing something for the people and yet deny those same people the right to have a say. Prof Jonathan Moyo has a right to his views, but those views must be subjected to the law for the amendments to be implemented legally, and based on what I have read in our Constitution, his views are not aligned with the law. And I am not making this up. It is in the Constitution. Even veteran Zimbabwean lawyer and former ZANUPF legal secretary, Patrick Chinamasa, has said so. In this video, he explains in front of President Mnangagwa that what they are attempting to do today, which Prof Jonathan Moyo argues does not require a referendum, would in fact require two referendums. One to remove or alter presidential term limits from five to seven years, and another to extend the sitting president’s tenure to 2030. This position was declared, and not contradicted, at a ZANUPF conference in Bulawayo. What the broader legal fraternity in Zimbabwe is saying, save for a few lawyers who have since revised their positions and now echo the same view, is that the Constitution is explicit on these prescripts. Anything else is political propaganda to win hearts and minds. The problem with propaganda is that it cannot be anchored in constitutional provisions. It rests on opinion. In this instance, however, we are not expressing opinions. We are stating what is contained in the Constitution and what ZANUPF itself has previously acknowledged. You can decide today that you want a 20-year presidential term. That is your right to hold that view, but you must subject that proposition to the law. If you believe in it, take it to the citizens in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. You cannot decide, through opinion or political argument, whether a referendum is required or not. That question is not settled by what anyone thinks. It is settled by what the law says. If the Constitution requires a referendum, then you must subject yourself to it. That is how constitutional democracy works. We know that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is captured. We know how they are going to rule, but the whole world knows the truth, that if they rule in favour of these amendments going ahead without a referendum, they are simply a captured judiciary without the respect that is required for anyone holding such an important office, and history will remember them as such.

I have listened to the debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 between legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge and political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo today on Twitter. Without any doubt, Dr Justice Mavedzenge explained, clarified, and made ordinary people understand the issues, and more importantly, in my humble view, he won the debate on whether there is need for Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 to be subjected to a referendum or not. Anything done for the people, as Prof Jonathan Moyo says these monumental amendments are, should be subjected to the people. The Constitution is not ambiguous on this. It is clear that term limits should be subjected to a referendum for any change to be done legally. Under Section 328 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, any amendment that seeks to extend the length of time a President may hold office, or to remove or alter term limits in a way that benefits an incumbent, cannot apply to the sitting President and must be subjected to constitutional safeguards. You cannot claim to be doing something for the people and yet deny those same people the right to have a say. Prof Jonathan Moyo has a right to his views, but those views must be subjected to the law for the amendments to be implemented legally, and based on what I have read in our Constitution, his views are not aligned with the law. And I am not making this up. It is in the Constitution. Even veteran Zimbabwean lawyer and former ZANUPF legal secretary, Patrick Chinamasa, has said so. In this video, he explains in front of President Mnangagwa that what they are attempting to do today, which Prof Jonathan Moyo argues does not require a referendum, would in fact require two referendums. One to remove or alter presidential term limits from five to seven years, and another to extend the sitting president’s tenure to 2030. This position was declared, and not contradicted, at a ZANUPF conference in Bulawayo. What the broader legal fraternity in Zimbabwe is saying, save for a few lawyers who have since revised their positions and now echo the same view, is that the Constitution is explicit on these prescripts. Anything else is political propaganda to win hearts and minds. The problem with propaganda is that it cannot be anchored in constitutional provisions. It rests on opinion. In this instance, however, we are not expressing opinions. We are stating what is contained in the Constitution and what ZANUPF itself has previously acknowledged. You can decide today that you want a 20-year presidential term. That is your right to hold that view, but you must subject that proposition to the law. If you believe in it, take it to the citizens in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. You cannot decide, through opinion or political argument, whether a referendum is required or not. That question is not settled by what anyone thinks. It is settled by what the law says. If the Constitution requires a referendum, then you must subject yourself to it. That is how constitutional democracy works. We know that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is captured. We know how they are going to rule, but the whole world knows the truth, that if they rule in favour of these amendments going ahead without a referendum, they are simply a captured judiciary without the respect that is required for anyone holding such an important office, and history will remember them as such.

Hopewell Chin’ono

62,458 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

I note Prime Minister Andrew Holness’s remarks in a TV interview this morning. Neither he nor his Party has made those proposals as part of the process of constitutional reform. His proposals are therefore not in the report of the Constitutional Reform Committee, and will not be in the new Constitution coming out of that process. Furthermore, Mr. Holness’s proposals are not in the existing Constitution, and would violate the existing Constitution. This is in keeping with his and his Government’s unfortunate history of past violations of the Constitution of Jamaica. It seems that the Prime Minister wants to make up a rule which is not part of the Constitution or laws of Jamaica, to suit his Party’s political fortune at a time when it is waning. He has no power and no authority to do that. He needs to tell the country why his statutory declarations to the Integrity Commission cannot be certified. I am compliant with the Constitution and laws of Jamaica, and I undertake to the People of Jamaica that I will continue to be so.

I note Prime Minister Andrew Holness’s remarks in a TV interview this morning. Neither he nor his Party has made those proposals as part of the process of constitutional reform. His proposals are therefore not in the report of the Constitutional Reform Committee, and will not be in the new Constitution coming out of that process. Furthermore, Mr. Holness’s proposals are not in the existing Constitution, and would violate the existing Constitution. This is in keeping with his and his Government’s unfortunate history of past violations of the Constitution of Jamaica. It seems that the Prime Minister wants to make up a rule which is not part of the Constitution or laws of Jamaica, to suit his Party’s political fortune at a time when it is waning. He has no power and no authority to do that. He needs to tell the country why his statutory declarations to the Integrity Commission cannot be certified. I am compliant with the Constitution and laws of Jamaica, and I undertake to the People of Jamaica that I will continue to be so.

Mark J. Golding

32,129 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Martha Karua: PLP will outlast me. Our constitution has a term limit. I will no longer be eligible as a party leader in the next elections of party leadership, which is immediately after the next general election. If parties are not structured in a way they outlast the leadership, then when a leader departs, there will be turmoil immediately, and that is what we are seeing. Parties must endeavor to have good governance, to have succession plans #CitizenExplainer

Martha Karua: PLP will outlast me. Our constitution has a term limit. I will no longer be eligible as a party leader in the next elections of party leadership, which is immediately after the next general election. If parties are not structured in a way they outlast the leadership, then when a leader departs, there will be turmoil immediately, and that is what we are seeing. Parties must endeavor to have good governance, to have succession plans #CitizenExplainer

Citizen TV Kenya

15,741 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Paul: The constitution in article two talks about the president cannot take gifts from foreign leaders. There is a provision in the constitution that says you cannot do this… I think it’s not worth the appearance of impropriety

Paul: The constitution in article two talks about the president cannot take gifts from foreign leaders. There is a provision in the constitution that says you cannot do this… I think it’s not worth the appearance of impropriety

Acyn

374,252 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Jazz's CEO has publicly come out in support of an unconstitutional bill. This is not merely a matter of the bill's wording or drafting, it is a question of fundamental human rights guaranteed under Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Aamir Hafeez Ibrahim's demands should not be accommodated if they are inconsistent with the Constitution. No individual's or company's preferences can override constitutional protections. Issues such as fiberization and digitization are important and should certainly be addressed, but they must be resolved within the framework of the Constitution and the law, not by curtailing citizens' fundamental rights.

Jazz's CEO has publicly come out in support of an unconstitutional bill. This is not merely a matter of the bill's wording or drafting, it is a question of fundamental human rights guaranteed under Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Aamir Hafeez Ibrahim's demands should not be accommodated if they are inconsistent with the Constitution. No individual's or company's preferences can override constitutional protections. Issues such as fiberization and digitization are important and should certainly be addressed, but they must be resolved within the framework of the Constitution and the law, not by curtailing citizens' fundamental rights.

Waqas Habib Rana

13,336 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

BLANCHE: Who the president chooses to pardon is not a problem, period IVEY: What's the legal basis for that statement? BLANCHE: The Constitution IVEY: The Constitution does not give him the authority to pardon in exchange for payments. It does not permit bribery

BLANCHE: Who the president chooses to pardon is not a problem, period IVEY: What's the legal basis for that statement? BLANCHE: The Constitution IVEY: The Constitution does not give him the authority to pardon in exchange for payments. It does not permit bribery

Aaron Rupar

936,173 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

We need a Congress that will protect the Constitution & build prosperity from the bottom up, not the billionaire down. So I'm running in #NJ11, in the first special House election of 2026, the next race we must win to turn America around. Please join us!

We need a Congress that will protect the Constitution & build prosperity from the bottom up, not the billionaire down. So I'm running in #NJ11, in the first special House election of 2026, the next race we must win to turn America around. Please join us!

Tom Malinowski

155,091 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Baba Mimo is more that what you hear on the surface. For one, it is not a song for or about any religion. And it's a song whose message we need now, more than ever. The first clip comes from a concert held in Lagos in April 2001. The second is from a concert held in August 2026.

Baba Mimo is more that what you hear on the surface. For one, it is not a song for or about any religion. And it's a song whose message we need now, more than ever. The first clip comes from a concert held in Lagos in April 2001. The second is from a concert held in August 2026.

Beautiful Nubia

10,658 Aufrufe • vor 18 Tagen

President William Ruto: On Wednesday, 12th August 2026, we shall formally launch a national conversation on Kenya’s future beyond Vision 2030, the most consequential exercise in national reflection and public participation since the promulgation of our Constitution in 2010. We shall bring together every institution, every county, and generation, leaders, faith communities, and above all, our young people will be at the centre

President William Ruto: On Wednesday, 12th August 2026, we shall formally launch a national conversation on Kenya’s future beyond Vision 2030, the most consequential exercise in national reflection and public participation since the promulgation of our Constitution in 2010. We shall bring together every institution, every county, and generation, leaders, faith communities, and above all, our young people will be at the centre

Citizen TV Kenya

57,345 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Sen. Peters: To have a judicial warrant to be able to knock someone's door down, that's in the Constitution. We're not going to compromise on a constitutional right, and I think it's absolutely outrageous that the administration says that they can't abide by the US Constitution.

Sen. Peters: To have a judicial warrant to be able to knock someone's door down, that's in the Constitution. We're not going to compromise on a constitutional right, and I think it's absolutely outrageous that the administration says that they can't abide by the US Constitution.

FactPost

16,341 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten