Goldenberg Commission of Inquiry Report - Mars Group Kenya

P. LE PELLEY
………………………
COMMISSIONER”
33. There was a lull for some time. Proceedings went on unimpeded.
But on 12 th August, 2004 Mr. Pravin Bowry, for Mr. Kulei, successfully
applied to be allowed to raise certain issues which in his view touched on
the conduct of two assisting counsel, to wit Dr. Khaminwa and Dr. Kuria.
In his view, and to quote him, “in the interest of justice and for the
protection of the integrity of all concerned I ask that we move the venue
to a form of proceedings in camera.” We had to hear him in camera on
the details of the matters he wanted to raise against the Assisting
Counsel. Eventually we ruled that those matters could be raised in
public. But this never came to be. Both assisting counsel and Mr.
Bowry noisily traded accusations in the hall and thus forced us to
exclude them from attending further proceedings in the hall under
Section. 3 of The Commissions of Inquiry Act.
34. The two assisting counsel moved to the High Court under High
Court Misc. Application No 1415 of 2004 for orders that the commission
allows them back. The High Court obliged and granted interim orders.
However, we did not think, in view of the orders, that we thereafter had
residual power to control proceedings at the hall. Consequently we
adjourned sine die pending the final determination of that application.
The order was generally not well received by members of the public.
Their view was our proceedings should not have been interrupted. Either
because of this or other reasons the applicants discontinued their suit.
Thereafter we resumed our public proceedings.
35. The last interruption to our public hearing has already been
considered under the sub-head on procedure.
36. We wish to conclude on this sub-head that while the parties who
originated the various suits were within their constitutional rights to do