ILLEGAL "LEGAL TENDER"?
Legal tender in any country with a working legal system, as its name suggests, is supposed to be legal. That said and done, I am saddened to put across the bamboozling fact that Kenya's legal tender or rather notes and coins are not so legal after all. Why, you ask? Well, herein under is my opinion as to why. Perhaps after going through this piece, the responsible bodies will make the necessary adjustments to ensure that we the people have a "legal" legal currency.
My point of departure comes way before the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution of Kenya. The few people who were keen enough to notice the dates inscribed upon the notes and coins at that time would bear me witness that the dates used to change with the passing of time. As time went on you could notice the systematic change in dates for all the notes and coins that were used in the country and this is rightly evidenced by the appearance of new dates on new notes, and not to mention, the coins as well.
With the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution came new laws and this gave directives as to how the legal tender should look and new directives in general concerning various aspects of public finance.
This is where it gets interesting... since the promulgation if the New Constitution in Kenya, notes and coins have seemingly never been produced in the country. At least that's what the Central Bank has many pundits and laymen pondering over. It has become increasingly vivid in recent years the specific date of 16th July 2010 as being the last date of production of notes in Kenya and since the coins only bear the year, I could only assume that the date is mutually inclusive to them as well.
One would dare ask me, 'Why the sudden fuss over this issue of dates in the currency used in the country?'. The answer yo this, Article 231 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. Yes! The supreme law of the land, which we the people Acknowledged, Adopted and Enacted to ourselves an to our future generations thus provides verbatim and seriatim: "...(4) Notes and coins issues by the Central Bank of Kenya may bear images that depict or symbolise Kenya or an aspect of Kenya but shall not bear the portrait of any individual." By Exercising our sovereign and inalienable right to determine the form of governance of our country and participating fully in making of the most progressive, transformative constitution in the world, we the people also included this very section into our supreme law. This section of the law, mind you, was not included in the constitution by mistake if that's what you're thinking. No. The constitution making process was a well thought out process, devoid of which we would not pride ourselves of a Constitution at this very moment.
Getting back to the legality of the currency in Kenya now, a quick look at the "legal tender" (emphasis added) reveals, as we all are aware, the portrait of the founding father of the nation. Well, some may say that this is an image that symbolizes or depicts the image of the country being that he was the first President of the Country and all. Well, those people are 100% correct. He symbolizes national unity as well. There is no problem with that. Then begs the question 'why the fuss?'. Simply put, and in quick response to the query, that alone is not enough. The constitution, in-as-much as it is read literally need also be read wholesomely. This having been rightly put, in considering the provisions of Article 231 (4) one has to read it to its entirety. This then brings us to the second part of the above quoted. The law is clear as to the inclusion or otherwise of an individual's portrait on the notes and coins issued by the CBK. The position is that the same is not permissible, just for the avoidance of doubt.
So then I beckon in the CBK through its Governor to please explain to the people why it is that 7 years after the promulgation of the constitution the portrait of the first President of Kenya is still depicted by the notes and coins issued through it. Secondly, are we still using the "legal tender" which was issued on 16 July 2010? And if we are, how does it happen then, that with every passing day newer notes and coins are seen and used in the country? It's my dilemma!
My point of departure comes way before the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution of Kenya. The few people who were keen enough to notice the dates inscribed upon the notes and coins at that time would bear me witness that the dates used to change with the passing of time. As time went on you could notice the systematic change in dates for all the notes and coins that were used in the country and this is rightly evidenced by the appearance of new dates on new notes, and not to mention, the coins as well.With the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution came new laws and this gave directives as to how the legal tender should look and new directives in general concerning various aspects of public finance.
This is where it gets interesting... since the promulgation if the New Constitution in Kenya, notes and coins have seemingly never been produced in the country. At least that's what the Central Bank has many pundits and laymen pondering over. It has become increasingly vivid in recent years the specific date of 16th July 2010 as being the last date of production of notes in Kenya and since the coins only bear the year, I could only assume that the date is mutually inclusive to them as well.
One would dare ask me, 'Why the sudden fuss over this issue of dates in the currency used in the country?'. The answer yo this, Article 231 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. Yes! The supreme law of the land, which we the people Acknowledged, Adopted and Enacted to ourselves an to our future generations thus provides verbatim and seriatim: "...(4) Notes and coins issues by the Central Bank of Kenya may bear images that depict or symbolise Kenya or an aspect of Kenya but shall not bear the portrait of any individual." By Exercising our sovereign and inalienable right to determine the form of governance of our country and participating fully in making of the most progressive, transformative constitution in the world, we the people also included this very section into our supreme law. This section of the law, mind you, was not included in the constitution by mistake if that's what you're thinking. No. The constitution making process was a well thought out process, devoid of which we would not pride ourselves of a Constitution at this very moment.
Getting back to the legality of the currency in Kenya now, a quick look at the "legal tender" (emphasis added) reveals, as we all are aware, the portrait of the founding father of the nation. Well, some may say that this is an image that symbolizes or depicts the image of the country being that he was the first President of the Country and all. Well, those people are 100% correct. He symbolizes national unity as well. There is no problem with that. Then begs the question 'why the fuss?'. Simply put, and in quick response to the query, that alone is not enough. The constitution, in-as-much as it is read literally need also be read wholesomely. This having been rightly put, in considering the provisions of Article 231 (4) one has to read it to its entirety. This then brings us to the second part of the above quoted. The law is clear as to the inclusion or otherwise of an individual's portrait on the notes and coins issued by the CBK. The position is that the same is not permissible, just for the avoidance of doubt.So then I beckon in the CBK through its Governor to please explain to the people why it is that 7 years after the promulgation of the constitution the portrait of the first President of Kenya is still depicted by the notes and coins issued through it. Secondly, are we still using the "legal tender" which was issued on 16 July 2010? And if we are, how does it happen then, that with every passing day newer notes and coins are seen and used in the country? It's my dilemma!
On that note, I do ask; is the CBK and it's Governor acting in accordance the the dictates of the constitution? If not, shouldn't he be facing the consequences envisioned by Chapter 6. Let's be frank here. This act of utter disregard of the Supreme Law of the Land is and should not be acceptable from anyone. Remember, nobody is above the law.
For more on this, check out the SDE's article on the great reveal by SC. Hon. Otiende Amolo
Labels: Current Affairs, Legal
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home