A four member bench headed by Chief Justice Dost Muhammad Khan heard Musharraf’s petition against the decision of the election tribunal declaring the returning officer’s acceptance of his nomination papers as void.

During the hearing the Peshawar High Court said Musharraf could not be allowed to contest elections as he had violated the constitution twice and confined the judges in their homes along with their children.

The election tribunal on April 16 disqualified him from contesting general elections from NA-32 Chitral, the only constituency from where the returning officer had accepted his nomination papers.

The former president challenged his disqualification through his lawyer Mushammad Saad Shibli.

The court listed the case for hearing tomorrow (Wednesday). A Division Bench of Justices Mansoor Ahmad Mir and Ali Mohammad Magray issued the notice and also directed the Inspector General of Police (Crime Branch) to submit a status report of the investigations conducted into the supply of drugs, Press Trust of India reported.

The PIL was filed seeking an independent probe into the scandal and action against those involved in facilitating the supply of substandard medicines to government hospital in the Valley. It also seeks a compensation for the patients who suffered due to spurious drugs.

Besides the Congress leader, co-accused Ved Prakash Pial alias Vedu Pradhan and Brahmanand Gupta had also moved the high court against framing of charges against them in the case.Apart from murder and rioting, a lower court in 2010 charged Mr Kumar and others for spreading enmity between two communities in the Sultanpuri case.Mr Kumar, along with five others, is also accused of allegedly inciting a mob to kill five Sikhs in the Delhi cantonment area in 1984. He has been charged with rioting, dacoity, murder, inciting violence, and damaging public property in that case. The verdict is likely to be delivered in this case tomorrow.

]]> http://latesturdunews.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/anti-sikh-riots-high-court-defers-verdict-on-sajjan-kumars-plea/ Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:06:56 +0000 Shawn Elan http://latesturdunews.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/anti-sikh-riots-high-court-defers-verdict-on-sajjan-kumars-plea/ http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/considering-the-totality-of-the-evidence-and-circumstances-of-the-case-we-are-of-the-view-that-the-high-court-has-rightly-reversed-the-judgment-of-the-trial-court-after-finding-the-appellant-guilty/ Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:40:35 +0000 advocatemmmohan http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/considering-the-totality-of-the-evidence-and-circumstances-of-the-case-we-are-of-the-view-that-the-high-court-has-rightly-reversed-the-judgment-of-the-trial-court-after-finding-the-appellant-guilty/ http://knskashmir.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/kunan-poshpora-gangrape-comes-up-for-hearing-in-high-court-2/ Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:36:20 +0000 KNS NewsDesk http://knskashmir.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/kunan-poshpora-gangrape-comes-up-for-hearing-in-high-court-2/ Srinagar: Amid public rage against the increasing rape incidents in India, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by fifty Kashmiri women seeking action on the horrific gang rape in Kunan Poshpora in 1991 came up for hearing in High Court on Monday.

“We, through this PIL, sought the immediate reopening and reinvestigation of a case where more than 40 Kashmiri women were brutally raped. We sought accountability for a case, which the Government has sought to ignore and bury. There have been consistent efforts to ensure impunity for the 4th Rajputana Rifles personnel responsible for the crime”, the litigants said in statement.

They added, “The victims of this crime have for all these years felt hopelessness, particularly as they have been on the receiving end of a callous and repressive State. In October 2011, the State Human Rights Commission [SHRC], confirmed the crime, passed necessary recommendations including the re-opening and re-investigation of the case, and institution of criminal proceedings against the then Director of Prosecutions for closing the case.”

“As usual, the State refused to act. One and a half years have passed and the State has displayed a cruel disregard for a crime whose consequences continue to date. We believe we have a responsibility to ensure that the impunity for this crime ends. Therefore, we approached the High Court”, they claimed in the statement.

In today’s hearing, before passing any order on admission, questions were posed by the Division Bench comprised of Justice A. M. Magray and Justice Mansoor: How can a PIL be a remedy for a 22-year-old case? Further, can a PIL be a remedy for the implementation of a SHRC decision?

“Our counsel, Advocate Parvez Imroz, has been asked to provide legal references to these questions in further submissions scheduled for next week. Despite the widely reported information on this case, the numerous arguments on record before the Court, the consistent and criminal role of the State in this case, and that sue motto cognizance of this case should have been taken years ago [as recently done in the LPG matter], it appears these questions have to still be answered. We are hopeful that in the hearing next week the Judges of the High Court would take a conscientious and legally sound decision of admitting the PIL and issuing notices against all the respondents”, the litigants added.

Addressing a press conference in Srinagar, MEJAF, Kashmir Bar Association, and Civil Society Kashmir reiterated that all the Central purchasing Committee (CPC) members involved in the purchase of spurious drugs be suspended. President Doctors Associations of Kashmir, Dr Nisar-ul-Hassan appealed people of Kashmir to observe a complete shut down on May 6 against this scam and show the government that “our conscience is still alive and we can go to any extent to fight for this social cause.”

In a scathing attack on the government of India as well as state government, Hassan said that spurious drugs are being supplied to Valley based hospitals in a planned way. “There is no alternative but to go for a strike against this hatched conspiracy. It is absurd and surprising that not a single statement came from the government,” he said.

He urged Kashmiri people to raise above personal differences and ideologies against this scam and protest against the entry of perpetrators who are supposed to land in Kashmir on May 6.

Terming the mainstream politicians as a rejected lot, Hassan said that we have not been able yet to broke shackles and for this we need to stand tall against all odds. “Scores of infants have died. It is murder and i urge Bar Association Kashmir to file a criminal case against Sham Lal Sharma so that he could be sent to gallows,” he said.

Chairperson of Civil Society Kashmir, Professor Hameeda Nayeem did not extend her support to strike call and kept her decision reserved. However, Bar Association and Jammu and Kashmir Chemists and Drug Association supported the strike call given by MEJAF during the press conference. Hameeda Nayeem said that the decision to support the strike the call would be taken by the executive committee of Civil Society Kashmir, so she reserves the decision.

She said that culprits should be brought to justice and an independent probe should be ordered. “We demand setting up of quality test laboratories in Kashmir,” she said and alleged that Union Health Minister, Ghulam Nabi Azad has been leaving no stone unturned in bailing out the culprits. “Azad is beating about the bush and is trying to divert the attention from the main issue by sending teams which are merely an eye-wash,” she said.

Advocate G.N.Shaheen declared that Bar will fully support the call and urge people to make the strike call a success,” he said. (CNS)

In 2009, Gemma Atkinson filmed the police searching her boyfriend on a mobile phone. The police officers claimed that filming them was illegal under counter-terrorism law and demanded she hand over the phone. She refused, was detained for 25 minutes and handcuffed, while they tried to get the phone out of her pocket. In the end, both she and her boyfriend were released.

Atkinson made an immediate complaint, taking her story and the footage above to the Guardian. She took her case to the High Court to get a judicial review of the Metropolitan Police guidelines, which should clearly state that the Terrorism Act only applies where “the images are considered ‘likely to be useful’ to a terrorist.” The Met changed the language to avoid a judicial review.

Atkinson then made a complaint against the specific officers involved. But the IPCC exonerated them, despite their conflicting accounts, saying they weren’t aware of the law! The IPCC awarded Atkinson compensation, which she used to make an animated film highlighting the right to photograph the police while carrying out their duties.

In fact, they (and us) are being filmed all the time – by CCTV cameras – but the police “own” this footage in the sense that it’s rarely available to the public. Citizen photographers are essential to monitor police activities, to make sure they’re serving the public and not abusing their own positions of trust.

After all, if you’ve done nothing wrong, then there’s nothing to fear.

Below is the link to Gemma Atkinson’s film, with a Guardian comments section, and here’s the press pack. If this bothers you as much as it does me, please consider reblogging or publicising the film. There’s a copy inside the press pack. Thank you.

Act of Terror

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sher shah Raod, Delhi

Applications are invited from the Indian Nationals for filling up the following posts on the establishment of this Court:
Personal Assistant : 30 posts (UR-4,SC-7,ST-4,OBC-15), Pay scale : Rs.9300 – 34800 grade pay Rs. 4200/- , Age : 18-27 years as on 01/01/2013., Qualifications : Graduate with Shorthand speed of 100 words per minute and typing speed of 40 words per minute and having knowledge of Computer.

Important Date

Last Date of application : 24/05/2013

For Details : Click Here 

Stay in touch with us for getting updates .

Ford Open Prison

A policy that prioritised the transfer to open conditions of post-tariff prisoners ahead of pre-tariff prisoners was a breach of the Secretary of State for Justice’s duty to allow indeterminate sentence prisoners a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate to the Parole Board that it was no longer necessary that they should remain in prison. Failure to publish that policy was a further breach of duty.

Two prisoners (H and J) applied for judicial review of a policy, administered by the defendant secretary of state, prioritising the transfer to open conditions of post-tariff indeterminate sentence prisoners, ahead of pre-tariff indeterminate sentence prisoners (indeterminate sentence prisoners (ISP) = life sentence prisoners).

H and J were pre-tariff indeterminate sentence prisoners  in closed condition prisons. Their most recent Parole Board reviews had identified that they would need to undertake further work in open conditions to demonstrate their eligibility for release. Because of constraints on resources, a policy was put in place that prioritised the transfer of post-tariff prisoners to open conditions. The relevant prison rules and policies contained no mention of any policy or arrangement for prioritising some categories of prisoners over others when implementing transfers to open conditions. H and J therefore experienced a delay in their transfers to open conditions.

H and J submitted that (1) the delay was a breach of the secretary of state’s duty to allow ISPs a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate to the Parole Board that it was no longer necessary that they should remain in detention; (2) it was irrational and unfair to prioritise post-tariff prisoners ahead of pre-tariff prisoners, regardless of their position on the waiting list; (3) the secretary of state was unlawfully operating an inflexible policy; (4) the policy was unlawful because it was unpublished and was inconsistent with published policy; (5) their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.5 had been breached; (6) their rights under art.8 had been breached; (7) the policy discriminated between pre-tariff and post-tariff in the enjoyment of their art.5 rights contrary to art.14.

HELD: (1) The secretary of state was in breach of his public law duty.

In consequence there was excessive delay in implementing the transfers of H and J to open conditions to enable them to undertake the work required to meet the objectives for their Parole Board reviews on the expiry of their tariffs (see para.66 of judgment).

(2) Prioritisation of post-tariff prisoners was rational and fair because they were already eligible for release. They were at least presumptively detained unlawfully and the legality of their detention was subject to art.5(4). There was a pressing need for the secretary of state to address their position. Ceasing the transfer of determinate prisoners and increasing the number of ISPs transferred would have resulted in unacceptable pressures on the management of the prisoners (paras 73-74 of judgment).

(3) The secretary of state’s discretionary power to place prisoners under the Prison Act 1952 s.12 was sufficiently wide to entitle him to adopt a policy on the prioritisation of certain categories of prisoners when deciding how to clear the backlog. He was required to apply that policy in the interests of consistency and fairness whilst retaining an open mind to the need to make exceptions in appropriate cases. The policy had included an express provision providing for exceptional circumstances. H and J were unable to point to anything exceptional about their cases (paras 76, 79).

(4) The new arrangements were properly characterised as policy. There was a public law duty to publish the new arrangements for the transfer of prisoners to open conditions. The prioritisation scheme affected the timing of their transfer which could affect the outcome of a Parole Board review and thus release. Importantly, prisoners could not make an individual request for their cases to be treated as exceptional if they were not aware of the arrangements, R. (on the application of Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12, [2012] 1 A.C. 245 applied. It was not appropriate to quash the policy merely because of a failure to publish when it was lawful and J had suffered no detriment. The appropriate public law remedy for an unlawful failure to publish was a mandatory order requiring publication (paras 83-85).

(5) The instant court was bound by the decision in R. (on the application of Wells) v Parole Board [2009] UKHL 22, [2010] 1 A.C. 553 in which the art.5 rights of ISPs had not been breached, despite the fact that the ECtHR consequently reversed that decision in James v United Kingdom (25119/09) (2013) 56 E.H.R.R. 12 and found that a breach had occurred, Wells followed and James considered. H and J’s art.5 rights had not been breached (paras 89-95).

(6) J’s art.8 rights were not interfered with by the delay in transfer to open conditions. The transfer, of itself, did not bestow upon J temporary leave in the community, to visit his family or to pursue employment decisions. The decision to grant such leave would be made separately from the transfer decision and would depend upon a specific assessment of risk (para.102).

(7) Although the ECtHR had ruled otherwise in Clift v United Kingdom (7205/07) Times, July 21, 2010, the instant court was bound by the lower decision of the House of Lords in that case that a prisoner’s status acquired by virtue of the length of his sentence was not a status protected by art.14, R. (on the application of Clift) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 54, [2007] 1 A.C. 484 followed and Clift v UK considered. H and J’s art.14 rights had not been breached (para.108).

The Case:

R (on the application of KEITH HANEY) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE : R (on the application of PETER JARVIS) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE (2013) [2013] EWHC 803 (Admin)

QBD (Admin) (Lang J) 11/04/2013

Consultant psychiatrist Dr Michelle Harley said that when first admitted, she prescribed 2 other anti-psychotic drugs before putting her on the current drug, zuclopenthixol. The first 2 obviously did not work or caused fairly serious side-effects then? Zuclopenthixol AKA Clopixol, is a Lundbeck creation. I won’t go into the dubious practices of Lundbeck, suffice to say, don’t believe a word this drug company say; they regularly cause death with their drugs. Here’s one of their Clopixol warning letters. Incidentally, they’re still upholding the ‘chemical imbalance’ rubbish. 

Related articles

• Teen girl in care of HSE to continue anti-psychotic medication despite her mother’s objection (irishtimes.com)
• The 3 musketeers? Lundbeck, the Irish College of Psychiatry and the Irish Medical Council. (leoniefennell.wordpress.com)
• http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0620/325752-report-says-deaths-of-children-in-care-preventable/
• http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/Publications/services/Mentalhealth/guidancedocmthealthact2001.pdf
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15266432

This case originated by way of preliminary reference to the ECJ from the High Court concerning the interpretation of Articles 1 and 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC on the protection of employees in the event of insolvency of their employer. Article 1(1) of Directive 2008/94 provides that the Directive is to apply to employee’s claims arising from contracts of employment or employment relationships and existing against employers who are in a state of insolvency within the meaning of Article 2(1) of that Directive.

Article 8 of the Directive provides that Member States are to ensure that necessary measures are taken to protect the interests of employees and of persons having already left the employer’s undertaking or business at the date of the onset of the employer’s insolvency in respect of rights conferring on them immediate or prospective entitlement to old-age benefits, including survivor’s benefits, under supplementary occupational or inter-occupational pension schemes outside the national statutory social security schemes.

The ECJ noted that the only measure of national law adopted for the express purpose of transposing Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 (previously Article 8 of Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980) is Section 7 of the Protection of Employees (Employer’s Insolvency) Act 1984, which provides that any contribution deducted by an employer, or due to be paid by that employer, during the 12 months preceding insolvency is to be paid into the supplementary occupational pension scheme.

The full facts of the case are set out in the judgement however the plaintiffs in the main proceedings (who were 10 former employees of Waterford Crystal) brought an action claiming that Ireland had not properly transposed Article 8 of Directive 2008/94.

At the beginning of 2009 a receiver was appointed for Waterford Crystal and it was found to be insolvent. The supplementary pension schemes set up by the company were wound up on 31st March 2009, when total assets came to EUR130 million, total liabilities were EUR 240 million and the deficit was therefore around EUR110 million. The actuary retained by the plaintiffs in the main proceedings considered that they would receive between 18 and 28% of the amounts to which they would have been entitled if they had received the present value of their accrued old-age pension rights. The actuary retained by Ireland was critical of that calculation and considered the percentage to be between 16 and 41% and did not approach the 49% referred to the Court in Case C-278/05 Robins and Others [2007] ECR I-1053.

Ireland maintained that it adopted, both before and after the judgement in Robins and Others numerous important measures designed to protect the interests of beneficiaries of supplemental pension schemes.

The High Court referred a series of questions to The ECJ which are set out in full in the judgement. In summary, the Court (Third Chamber) ruled:

1. Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to the entitlement of former employees to old-age benefits under a supplementary pension scheme set up by their employer.
2. Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 must be interpreted as meaning that State pension benefits may not be taken into account in assessing whether a Member State has complied with the obligation laid down in that article.
3. Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for that article to apply, it is sufficient that the pension scheme is underfunded as of the date of the employer’s insolvency and that, on account of his insolvency, the employer does not have the resources to contribute sufficient money to the pension scheme to enable the pension benefits owned to the beneficiaries of that scheme to be satisfied in full. It is not necessary for those beneficiaries to prove that there are other factors giving rise to the loss of their entitlement to old-age benefits.
4. Directive 2008/94 must be interpreted as meaning that the measures adopted by Ireland following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 25 January 2007 in Case C-278/05 Robins and Others do not fulfil the obligations imposed by that directive and that the economic situation of the Member State concerned does not constitute an exceptional situation capable of justifying a lower level of protection of the interests of employees as regards their entitlement to old-age benefits under a supplementary occupational pension scheme.
5. Directive 2008/94 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the measures taken by Ireland subsequent to Robins and Others have not brought about the result that the plaintiffs would receive in excess of 49% of the value of their accrued old-age pension benefits under their occupational pension scheme is in itself a serious breach of that Member State’s obligations.

It is likely that the ruling will have much wider implications for the State in terms of its obligations towards employee pension protection. It is thought that approximately 1500 former Waterford Crystal workers will benefit from the ruling. The case will now revert back to the High Court to determine what level of cover the State may have to provide.

Watch this space!

Magistrate Janine Ungerer ruled the matter would resume on June 20, when a High Court date for their trial would be set.

Julius Malema charged with money laundering.

Malema is accused of having made nearly R4 million from corrupt activities. He is out on bail of R10,000 and faces charges of fraud, corruption, money-laundering, and racketeering.

Appearing with Malema were his business associates Kagisho Dichabe, Lesiba Gwangwa, Helen Moreroa and Makgetsi Manthata, who were granted bail of R40,000 each on September 25.

They appeared in the High Court building as the Magistrate’s Court was gutted by fire last year, nearly a month after their first appearance.

Malema’s friend Jacob Lebogo accompanied him to court. Several Malema supporters arrived at the court on Tuesday. In contrast to previous court appearances they did not sing outside the court.

Streets leading to the building were closed with barbed wire. Police said precautionary measures were taken to guard against unruly behaviour but, in the event, the only disruption was traffic congestion in the area in the early morning.

Chief Constable Chris Eyre facing a civil claim over corruption in Notts Police

After waging an anti-corruption campaign against the corrupt Nottinghamshire Police ‘Service’ since 1999, I now intend to sue the Chief Constable for damages if necessary.

In my own case, the list is police negligence and corruption is simply appalling and be in no doubt that Notts Police tried to have me wiped from the face of the earth to stop the anti-corruption campaign. But due to my stamina and unbreakable determination they lost the battle.

Since September 1999, I have endured the following…

• Had to relocate to another are in September 1999 because police refused to protect me and allowed gangsters to run riot in Nottingham, aided and abetted by negligent and corrupt ‘police officers’
• Corrupt Notts Police tried to blame me for a violent attack on my home on 1 January 2000 by a gang of drug dealers I exposed. Armed police were called to the incident but the gangsters had long gone. Police then arrested me for my own ‘protection’
• Chief Inspector David Wakelin warned me not to investigate criminal gangs and police corruption in Nottinghamshire. He admitted to being friends with gangster Colin Gunn who was later sent to prison for 35 years for conspiracy to commit double murder
• Inspector Peter Kerfoot, Professional ‘Standards’ Department, gave me a mouthful of abuse on the telephone and said, “you’re only doing this for the fucking money, you cunt.” In fact, I had made no financial claim against Notts Police
• PC Andrew Sinnamon resigned after a disciplinary complaint was upheld against him. He refused to arrest two criminals leaving Nottingham Magistrates Court wanted for harassment and death threats
• Desperate Chief Inspector Mike Cleminson enforced a Public Interest Immunity certificate after I exposed his lies in defence of Inspector Kerfoot. Both Cleminson and Kerfoot received the full support of corrupt Labour MPs Vernon Coaker and Geoff Hoon
• In April 2004, I was subjected to politically motivated malicious prosecution after refusing to become a Special Branch informant and promising the police I would expose their corruption
• In April 2004, Nottinghamshire Police gained illegal access to my NHS medical records and a further attempt to access records at my GP’s surgery was blocked in person by Dr Kelvin Lim
• In August 2004, Notts Police and the CPS said I was a “fantasist” at Nottingham Magistrates Court and claimed I had never had any contact with Special Branch. My solicitor Richard Posner showed the magistrates email evidence of my contact with Special Branch and the CPS had to make an immediate U-turn but offered me no apology for defamation. But Richard Posner warned that the State would never allow me to win the case and that I would be frame. He proved to be entirely right
• In March 2005, I was arrested at home by 4 police officers, one of whom assaulted me while I was handcuffed to the rear. My laptop was seized by the ‘police’ to access my data prior to an abuse of process hearing. I was later refused charge by the CPS
• In June 2005, Notts Police refused to investigate an organised threat against me by supporters of the British National Party. A covert tape recording obtained as evidence was handed back to me. The police did not listen to the tape and claimed, “Notts Police computers cannot play CD disks”
• In July 2005, I was put before a secret court hearing [in camera] at Nottingham Crown Court and the press and members of the public prevented from attending the hearing. The objective was to conceal any material embarrassing Special Branch and MI5. This came after a previous hearing at Nottingham Magistrates Court at which the CPS liars claimed I’d never had any contact with Special Branch. They then summoned SB officer DC Quinn as a witness, who in fact managed the file kept on me by Special Branch. So much for never having had any contact with Special Branch…
• Between 2004 and 2006, Notts Police officers were allowed to submit whatever fabricated evidence they wanted against me in the courts. A string of tame Establishment judges allowed them to do whatever they wanted. The prime malefactors were Judge Richard Pollard and Judge Michael Stokes. During the case, police claimed I was positively identified at an ID parade at Carlton Police Station. I did not attend the ID parade and was ‘represented’ by a solicitor I’d never even met. Ian Boddy of the Johnson Partnership admitted his firm did not represent me on said occasion but the police were told to rewrite the evidence against me and re-submit it through the CPS
• Manager of Nottingham Crown Court (HMCS) sent a written notice to HMP Nottingham in 2005, advising them to expect me in prison in due course, even before I had stood trial. I was not convicted until a year later on the basis of lies and fabricated ‘evidence’ by the police and CPS. At every stage, judges allowed them to submit whatever fantasy they wanted against me but I was repeatedly blocked from submitting evidence in my defence. This is the method used by the corrupt criminal justice system to frame a defendant
• The police and CPS denied there was any political aspect to the malicious prosecution and then hired Conservative MP and former ‘journalist’ Anna Soubry to finish the prosecution against me in May and June 2006
• After being convicted at what was tantamount to a drum-head court martial, I was fined and given a conditional discharge. Barrister Sarah Knight told me at Nottingham Crown Court, “the only reason you’re not going to prison today is because you’ve worked as a journalist”
• In 2007, after the conditional discharge elapsed, I started the anti-corruption campaign again and intended to eradicate corruption in Nottinghamshire Police. I was determined the crooks who framed me would not get away with it
• Between 2007 and 2010, I uncovered a great deal of police corruption – exposed on this blog and elsewhere – and made plans to leave Nottinghamshire prior to publication
• In February 2010, Notts Police officers attempted to frame me again on a trumped allegation as I got ever closer to exposing their corruption in the public domain. They had been tipped off by police informant Andrew Chrich. The IPCC whitewashed my complaint but admitted anti-corruption officer Supt Brian Beasley fabricated a cover story to protect a junior officer who had committed perjury. No disciplinary action was taken against any of the police officers involved
• In September 2010, Notts Police admitted to my solicitor that they had falsely accused me of counterfeiting and forgery but refused to remove the smear from the Police National Computer. I was also refused any form of apology from the biggest organised criminal gang in Nottinghamshire, aka Nottinghamshire ‘Police’
• In November and December 2010, I handed evidence of widespread police corruption in Nottinghamshire to MI5 and the Home Office in London. I gave them the opportunity to deal with the corruption and promised to publish nothing. They took no action and decided to bury the corruption instead
• In January 2011, I was harassed by two police officers at home who insisted I did not publish any further material on police “asset” Shaun Breach and corruption in Notts Police. In particular, they wanted me not to use Twitter and Facebook, so I followed their ‘advice’ and splashed their corruption all over social media websites to prove I would NOT be intimidated
• In February 2011, I was again harassed at home by two other police officers who wanted to put the frighteners on me. At 03.oohrs on 3 February 2011, I left home in a taxi and fled to London to avoid police harassment. At the same time, I published a covert tape recording exposing several police officers involved in tipping off criminals and dealing in hardcore pornography. I gave more evidence on police corruption to the Home Office and MI5 in London and waited for action but nothing was done
• Returning to Nottingham the same month, I was warned by David Sharp-Woods that corrupt police officers could pay someone to have me attacked or shot as revenge for exposing their corruption. I relocated to Derbyshire
• In March 2011, I was stopped in Nottingham by several police officers who conducted a stop and search on me for “concealed drugs” but they found nothing. I do use or traffic narcotics. Having already exposed the Porngate corruption scandal, the ‘police’ were desperate for revenge but failed again. Home Secretary Theresa May visited Nottingham and gave Notts Police a “clean bill of health” and in the process made herself look corrupt and stupid
• Shortly thereafter in March 2011, police “asset” Shaun Breach attacked me in Nottingham after I had visited my mother. Acting under legal advice,  I handed a covert tape recording of the incident to Notts Police but they refused to conduct so much as a routine stop and search on their “asset” Shaun Breach
• In April 2011, I demanded action from Notts Police but they refused to explain why no stop and search would be made on Breach. The madman, with an appalling record of arrest for violent attacks, death threats and intimidating witnesses was allowed to run riot by corrupt police officers with a tacit agenda to stop me
• In May 2011, I made an ‘offer of service’ to MI5 to deal with police corruption and again waited for action
• In June 2011, Deputy Chief Constable Chris Eyre refused me police protection and admitted he had no authority from the Home Office to conduct an anti-corruption ‘investigation’. Eyre wanted to bury the corruption using the IPCC whitewash brigade but I refused him any cooperation. He refused to arrest and question police informant Andrew Chrich regarding his detailed knowledge of police corruption
• In September 2011, Chief Supt David Wakelin was relieved of his command of the corrupt D Division. In June 2011, I asked the Home Office to conduct an anti-corruption investigation into his finanacial affairs going back 20 years to determine if he had received bribes from gangsters in Nottinghamshire
• In July, August and September 2012, I was contacted by former SAS trooper ‘Stephen Bagan’ who had been seconded to MI5/Special Branch for 3 years investigating the BNP and Combat 18. He was tasked to help me defeat the threat posed by Shaun Breach and his corrupt police friends
• My campaign against Notts Police corruption was escalated after the close of the Leveson Inquiry in November 2012 and I returned from London to Derbyshire to finish the campaign
• By the end of 2012, the tide had turned against Notts Police and its concealment of corruption. The first arrests began and by April 2013, 13 police officers, 2 PCSOs and 4 civilian support staff had been arrested on suspicion of committing criminal offences
• In February 2013, the Labour Party was hammered at the Eastwood South election because people had tired of Gloria De Piero’s arrogance and corruption. Labour has ignored police corruption in Eastwood and Ashfield since 1997 by now the tide is turning at the ballot box
• In April 2013, PC Richard Reynolds, enraged at his corruption being exposed, resorted to intimidation of witnesses to find my location to exact violent revenge. The Porngate scandal erupted and spread across the Internet like a wildfire. Acting on the advice of County Councillor Jason Zadrozny, I published the tape recording detailing PC Reynold’s criminal activities

The foregoing list is a mere summary of my anti-corruption campaign against Nottinghamshire Police and three of its impotent Chief Constables in the shape of Steve Green Julia Hodson and Chris Eyre.

Current Chief Constable Chris Eyre can be in no doubt that I now intend to litigate for damages against Nottinghamshire Police. If he wants another major legal battle, I will fight him tooth and nail for justice but if he has any sense left, he will offer me compensation without dragging the tarnished name of Notts Police through the courts all over again.

I have only one thing to say to Chris Eyre: You lost the war, now win the peace and restore the reputation of Nottinghamshire Police and I shall help you to do so in the public interest.

Obviously this is an irreverent question, and not the sort of thing that could be countenanced in academia or in diplomatic circles. But I just couldn’t help myself since I write about practical realities in politics and governance here, while watching the podcast of Maina Kiai and Joel Barkan discussing the “Implications of the Kenyan Election” @NED and a question from the audience has inquired about the latest Pattni ruling.

Last week we learned that Kamlesh “Paul” Pattni, one of Kenya’s wealthiest “men of business” (not like Uhuru, apparently, but very wealthy) had been the beneficiary of a big legal breakthrough as the media reported that High Court Justice Joseph Mbalu Mutava had ruled back in March that Pattni could not be prosecuted in the trial courts for the notorious Goldenberg corruption scandal.

“Judge defiant after clearing Pattni of Goldenberg scam”

The judge also observed that the report by Commission of Inquiry chaired by former Court of Appeal judge Samuel Bosire on the scandal on which the existing criminal case was anchored is flawed and that most witnesses had died or their memories have faded.

Pattni moved to the High Court in August last year seeking to quash the criminal proceedings at the magistrate’s court and stop the State from further criminal prosecution on the scandal estimated to have cost Kenya billions of shillings.

On Pattni’s prayer that the media be barred from reporting on the case, the judge said that the court could only intervene to set parameters of reporting to protect someone’s rights.

Last November, Justice Mutava’s conduct was put to question in a petition filed against him by Havi and Company Advocates on behalf of the International Centre for Policy and Conflict (ICPC). It sought to have the judge removed from office over his handling of the Pattni cases.

ICPC had argued that the whole matter had not been handled through the correct procedure and some court orders made were outside of the law.

The petitioner had faulted the judge’s handling of the case and accused him of being part of “an orchestrated cover-up to aid and abet Pattni’s criminal conduct”.

Justice Mutava was later transferred to Kericho from where he wrote the controversial judgment on Mr Pattni’ application for the case to be scrapped.

(Read: Mutunga moves judge in the eye of Pattni storm)

In setting Pattni free, the judge heavily borrowed from cases that involved the late internal security minister George Saitoti and former Central Bank governor Eric Kotut, where the court recommended that the two should not be prosecuted based on the Bosire Report, which it said was heavily flawed.

. . . .

Unless director of public prosecutions Keriako Tobiko appeals the decision, the judgment brings to rest a 20-year-old scandal that destabilised Kenya’s economy and triggered massive depreciation of the shilling.

Mr Tobiko has already applied to court asking to be supplied with the certified copies of the proceedings to appeal the decision. The scandal dates back to 1990 when Mr Pattni incorporated Goldenberg International Limited, which claimed to have been engaged in gold and jewellery exports.

The Treasury paid the company Sh5.8 billion in compensation for the alleged exports, which was faulted as illegal, irregular and in some instances non-existent.

The businessman-turned-preacher was charged in court with the offence in the 1990s, but when former President Mwai Kibaki took office in 2003, all the pending nine charges were terminated and the Bosire commission formed to investigate the scandal.

The commission in its 2006 report recommended further investigations and prosecution of the suspects including Mr Pattni.

Meanwhile, Mr Pattni struck a plea bargain deal with the Central Bank, to which he refunded Sh2.4 billion and surrendered the Grand Regency (now Laico) Hotel.

(Read: Pattni bank targets CBK with Sh5bn Goldenberg-linked suit)

Following the recommendation of the Bosire Report, Pattni was charged at the magistrate court in 2006 with four criminal charges. In 2011, he started talks with the DPP to have the criminal proceedings dropped which collapsed early last year.

The charges against Pattni were brought afresh in April last year, where he was charged with eleven charges that included seven new ones. Following the development, he moved to High Court seeking to stop further prosecution saying that the state had infringed on his rights. . . .

Although the Judgment may have left room for the DPP to carry out fresh investigations, this may be a tall order considering that as noted by the Judge most witnesses have either died or their memories faded.

Among the dead co-accused are former spy chief James Kanyotu, former Treasury PS Wilfred Koinange and CBK deputy governor Eliphas Riungu.

Hmm. There are a lot of ways to win a criminal case for the defense besides being actually, as opposed to legally presumed, innocent. Who thinks the charges against Pattni are not rooted in fact?

Related articles

• How Kamlesh Pattni has beaten Kenya’s criminal justice system for 20 years (nation.co.ke)
• ICC judge quit Uhuru’s case over workload (capitalfm.co.ke)

I find the debate on this whole area fascinating. Most people I hear talking about their opposition to Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) such as IVF, IUI, Donor Conception and even surrogacy come at it from an ideological perspective and show little or no insight into the deep emotional heartache and trauma facing people who are trying to conceive.

The decision to go for IVF is not a decision taken lightly by anyone; the procedure itself is highly technical, very invasive and has an average success rate of about 30%. So why do people put themselves through it – put simply they just want to have a baby like anyone else.

To those who see people who opt for donor conception as people who are designing a baby, I challenge them to sit in one of support meetings I regularly attend. It is so far from the truth and I find the suggestion lacks any real understanding of the process and what people are going through.

Getting pregnant is the most natural thing in the world for some people but now 1 in 6 couples has difficulty in trying to conceive. Causes of fertility issues are equally shared between men and women with an additional 1/3 of cases reported as having unexplained infertility.

22nd April 2013

Lusaka Chief Resident Magistrate Joshua Banda has today thrown out an application in which former Republican president Rupiah Banda had sought to have his abuse of office case referred to the High Court citing constitutional issues.

To read the full article, click here.

Open Zambia