24.04.2013 Views

Goldenberg Commission of Inquiry Report - Mars Group Kenya

Goldenberg Commission of Inquiry Report - Mars Group Kenya

Goldenberg Commission of Inquiry Report - Mars Group Kenya

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

uling for one moment, and let us look at the issue as<br />

lawyers.”<br />

25. It was quite clear to us that he was trying indirectly to raise the<br />

same issues we had ruled on. Consequently we ruled that the High<br />

Court order was not capable <strong>of</strong> compliance. Thereafter the hearings <strong>of</strong><br />

the <strong>Commission</strong> proceeded on uninterrupted for some time.<br />

26. Then came 6 th July, 2003 Mr. Kamlesh Mansuklal Pattni, who with<br />

one James Kanyotu, are the directors and only shareholders <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>Goldenberg</strong> International Ltd, was prevented by the police from boarding<br />

a Dubai bound flight and his passport was seized. It was alleged that the<br />

seizure <strong>of</strong> the passport was on orders from this <strong>Commission</strong>. His<br />

counsel Mr. Rebelo, complained that the seizure was illegal and<br />

unconstitutional arguing that the said passport which had earlier been<br />

surrendered to the High Court on orders <strong>of</strong> a judge had been released to<br />

him by that court to enable him make the trip to Dubai. Besides, that<br />

the <strong>Commission</strong> was acting in breach <strong>of</strong> a court order and infringing the<br />

rights <strong>of</strong> his client to travel to a destination <strong>of</strong> his choice. He added that<br />

investigating <strong>of</strong>ficers who were attached to this <strong>Commission</strong> had insisted<br />

on recording a statement from his client contrary to the law as in his<br />

view his client having been served with an adverse notice under Section<br />

3 <strong>of</strong> The <strong>Commission</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>Inquiry</strong> Act no one had the right to demand a<br />

statement from him. He could only voluntarily testify on his own behalf<br />

and call witnesses in support <strong>of</strong> his case and no more.<br />

27. Apart from the last issue we did not think the matter called for a<br />

ruling as we considered it purely administrative and we advised counsel<br />

as much. But as regards the last issue we ruled through the Chairman<br />

in the following terms:<br />

“Let me cut you short. Let me remind you <strong>of</strong> the rules <strong>of</strong><br />

this <strong>Commission</strong>. One <strong>of</strong> the rules says that no one<br />

should make a statement prejudicial to the proceedings <strong>of</strong><br />

this <strong>Inquiry</strong>, particularly statements out there, where we<br />

have no opportunity <strong>of</strong> asking anybody questions on what<br />

he or she has said. Secondly, personally, I do not like<br />

dealing with administrative matters here. I would rather

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!