|
|
|
Kenya’s deputy president pleads not guilty in impeachment process
Court News |
2024/10/22 07:53
|
Kenya’s deputy president, who faces impeachment, pleaded not guilty in a senate hearing Wednesday to all allegations including corruption, inciting ethnic divisions and support for anti-government protests that saw demonstrators storm the country’s parliament.
Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, who has called the allegations politically motivated, could be the first sitting deputy president impeached in Kenya.
The case highlights the friction between him and President William Ruto — something that Ruto once vowed to avoid after his past troubled relationship as deputy to Kenya’s previous president, Uhuru Kenyatta.
Gachagua has said he believes the impeachment process has Ruto’s blessing, and has asked legislators to make their decision “without intimidation and coercion.”
The tensions risk introducing more uncertainty for investors and others in East Africa’s commercial hub. Court rulings this week allowed the parliament and senate to proceed with the impeachment debate, despite concerns over irregularities raised by the deputy president’s lawyers.
The impeachment motion was approved in parliament last week and forwarded to the senate. Gachagua’s legal team will have Wednesday and Thursday to cross-examine witnesses, and the senate will vote Thursday evening.
Under the Kenyan Constitution, the removal from office is automatic if approved by both chambers, though Gachagua can challenge the action in court — something he has said he would do.
Kenya’s president has yet to publicly comment on the impeachment process. Early in his presidency, he said he wouldn’t publicly humiliate his deputy.
Ruto, who came to office claiming to represent Kenya’s poorest citizens, has faced widespread criticism for his efforts to raise taxes in an effort to find ways to pay off foreign creditors. But the public opposition led him to shake up his cabinet and back off certain proposals. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas Supreme Court halts execution of man in shaken baby case
U.S. Court News |
2024/10/18 06:24
|
The Texas Supreme Court halted Thursday night’s scheduled execution of a man who would have become the first person in the U.S. put to death for a murder conviction tied to a diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome.
The late-night ruling to spare for now the life of Robert Roberson, who was convicted of killing his 2-year-old daughter in 2002, capped a flurry of last-ditch legal challenges and weeks of public pressure from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers who say he is innocent and was sent to death row based on flawed science.
In the hours leading up to the ruling, Roberson had been confined to a prison holding cell a few feet from America’s busiest death chamber at the Walls Unit in Hunstville, waiting for certainty over whether he would be taken to die by lethal injection.
“He was shocked, to say the least,” said Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokesperson Amanda Hernandez, who spoke with Roberson after the court stayed his execution. “He praised God and he thanked his supporters. And that’s pretty much what he had to say.”
She said Roberson would be returned to the Polunsky Unit, about 45 miles (72 kilometers) to the east, where the state’s male death row is located.
Roberson, 57, was convicted of killing of his daughter, Nikki Curtis, in the East Texas city of Palestine. His lawyers and some medical experts say his daughter died not from abuse but from complications related to pneumonia.
It is rare for the Texas Supreme Court — the state’s highest civil court — to get involved in a criminal matter.
But how the all-Republican court wound up stopping Roberson’s execution in the final hours underlined the extraordinary maneuvers used by a bipartisan coalition of state House lawmakers who have come to his defense.
Rejected by courts and Texas’ parole board in their efforts to spare Roberson’s life, legislators on Wednesday tried a different route: issuing a subpoena for Roberson to testify before a House committee next week, which would be days after he was scheduled to die. The unusual plan to buy time, some of them conceded, had never been tried before.
They argued that executing Roberson before he could offer subpoenaed testimony would violate the Legislature’s constitutional authority. Less than two hours before Roberson’s execution, a judge in Austin sided with lawmakers and paused the execution, but that was then reversed by an appeals panel. The Texas Supreme Court then weighed in with its order, ending a night of uncertainty.
Roberson is scheduled to testify before the committee Monday.
“This is an innocent man. And there’s too much shadow of a doubt in this case,” said Democratic state Rep. John Bucy. “I agree this is a unique decision today. We know this is not a done deal. He has a unique experience to tell and we need to hear that testimony in committee on Monday.”
Gov. Greg Abbott had authority to delay Roberson’s punishment for 30 days. Abbott has halted only one imminent execution in nearly a decade as governor and has not spoken publicly about the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nebraska high court to decide if residents with felony records can vote
Legal Line News |
2024/10/16 06:25
|
Thousands of Nebraska residents with felony records will learn Wednesday whether they’ll be able to vote in next month’s hotly contested elections after the state Supreme Court issues its ruling on a lawsuit seeking to restore their voting rights.
The state’s high court heard arguments in August on a lawsuit challenging a decision by the state’s top election officials to ignore a new state law restoring the voting rights of those who have been convicted of a felony.
The decision comes just days ahead of state deadlines to register to vote in the Nov. 5 general election.
Brad Christian-Sallis, a director at the nonprofit civic engagement organization Nebraska Table, said he has heard from those with felony criminal records who were looking forward to voting not just in the presidential race, but on state and local races that affect their neighborhoods and schools.
“It’s absolutely caused a lot of anxiety and frustration,” he said.
Secretary of State Bob Evnen ordered county election officials not to register those with felony convictions for the November election after the state’s attorney general, Mike Hilgers, said in July that the new law was unconstitutional. Evnen had sought that opinion from Hilgers.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of several Nebraska residents who would be denied the right to vote under Evnen’s directive. Because Evnen’s move came only weeks ahead of the November election, the ACLU asked to take the lawsuit directly to the Nebraska Supreme Court, and the high court agreed.
Evnen’s order could keep more than 7,000 Nebraska residents from voting in the upcoming election, the ACLU has said. Many of them reside in Nebraska’s Omaha-centered 2nd Congressional District, where both the race for president and Congress could be in play. In an otherwise reliably Republican state that, unlike most others, splits its electoral votes, the district has twice awarded an electoral vote to Democratic presidential candidates — once to Barack Obama in 2008 and again to Joe Biden in 2020.
Civic Nebraska, a voting rights advocacy group, is a plaintiff in the lawsuit seeking to force state officials to enact the new law.
“Whenever the decision comes, we have a plan to run registration drives and get the word out,” the group’s voting rights restoration coordinator, Noah Rhoades, said in an open letter to voters last week.
The law, passed by the Nebraska Legislature this year and often referred to by its bill number, LB20, immediately restores the voting rights of people who have successfully completed the terms of their felony sentences.
The attorney general’s opinion says the new law violates the state constitution’s separation of powers because he believes only the Nebraska Board of Pardons has the authority to restore a person’s voting rights through a pardon.
Pardons are hard to get in Nebraska, which requires those convicted of felonies to wait 10 years after their terms to even file an application for a pardon, and are rarely granted. The Pardons Board is made up three members: Evnen, Hilgers and Gov. Jim Pillen. All three are Republicans who have been vocal about their opposition to restoring the voting rights of those with felony records.
Hilgers’ opinion also found unconstitutional a 2005 state law that restored the voting rights of people with felony convictions two years after they complete the terms of their sentences. If that law is upheld as unconstitutional, it could disenfranchise tens of thousands of Nebraskans who have been eligible to vote for the last 19 years.
Evnen has said he has not taken steps to remove from the voter rolls those with felony convictions who had legally registered to vote under the 2005 law. But that has done little to assuage the concern of people who have been able to legally voted for years, Christian-Sallis said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court grapples with governor’s 400-year veto, calling it ‘crazy’
Legal News |
2024/10/12 11:48
|
Justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court said Wednesday that Gov. Tony Evers’ creative use of his expansive veto power in an attempt to lock in a school funding increase for 400 years appeared to be “extreme” and “crazy” but questioned whether and how it should be reined in.
“It does feel like the sky is the limit, the stratosphere is the limit,” Justice Jill Karofsky said during oral arguments, referring to the governor’s veto powers. “Perhaps today we are at the fork in the road ... I think we’re trying to think should we, today in 2024, start to look at this differently.”
The case, supported by the Republican-controlled Legislature, is the latest flashpoint in a decades-long fight over just how broad Wisconsin’s governor’s partial veto powers should be. The issue has crossed party lines, with Republicans and Democrats pushing for more limitations on the governor’s veto over the years.
In this case, Evers made the veto in question in 2023. His partial veto increased how much revenue K-12 public schools can raise per student by $325 a year until 2425. Evers took language that originally applied the $325 increase for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years and instead vetoed the “20” and the hyphen to make the end date 2425, more than four centuries from now.
“The veto here approaches the absurd and exceeds any reasonable understanding of legislative or voter intent in adopting the partial veto or subsequent limits,” attorneys for legal scholar Richard Briffault, of Columbia Law School, said in a filing with the court ahead of arguments.
That argument was cited throughout the oral arguments by justices and Scott Rosenow, attorney for Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce Litigation Center, which handles lawsuits for the state’s largest business lobbying group and brought the case.
The court should strike down Evers’ partial veto and declare that the state constitution forbids the governor from striking digits to create a new year or to remove language to create a longer duration than the one approved by the Legislature, Rosenow argued.
Finding otherwise would give governors unlimited power to alter numbers in a budget bill, Rosenow argued.
Justices appeared to agree that limits were needed, but they grappled with where to draw the line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Marketing News RSS
