My colleagues and I parse words for a living. We haven't written the Great Kenyan Novel (yet), but the more experienced of my seniors have a clarity of language that leaves me in awe. They would not be flummoxed by the difference between constitutional and statutory construction.

None of them by the by, hankers for the title "Senior Counsel" thought they have earned it many times over. They have also successfully managed to dodge scores of HSCs, OGWs, EBSs and MGHs. I don't think they want the world to think that they are the same as parliamentarians.

Anyway, as @Olez wittily reminds the lot of you, we are most amused by the kerfuffle that is THAT senior counsel's views about "shall" as in "...the Chief Justice SHALL advise the President to dissolve Parliament and the President SHALL dissolve Parliament".

I believe THAT senior counsel called the Chief Justice, variously, a "drama queen" and a "judicial anarchist" because he has converted his role of administrative messenger into one of judicial populism.

First we must go to the beginning of Article 261 which begins rather promisingly, "Parliament shall enact any law required by this Constitution to be enacted...". Does the Constitution require the enactment of a law on the two-thirds gender principle? Let us look at 27 (8)...

The germane bit says "the State shall take legislative and other measures to implement the principle that not more than two-thirds of the members of elective or appointive bodies are of the same gender".

So yes, reading Arts. 261 (1) and 27 (8) together, Parliament MUST enact legislation to implement the two-thirds gender principle AS PART OF the measures undertaken by the State in this regard. The question then raises: when should the law be enacted?

For this we turn to the Fifth Schedule. The last row in the Schedule is unequivocal: any other legislation required by this constitution - five years. Is the 2/3 gender law required? Yes. Has it been enacted within the prescribed period? No. Which brings us to consequences.

Back to Art. 261. Clauses (5), (6) - thank you #WeAre52pc for your valuable work - give any person the right to petition the High Court for an order to compel the A-G and Parliament to take steps to enact the law. Petitions were filed. Orders were granted. Parliament failed.

Clause (7) is the meat and potatoes of this judicial lawfare. If Parliament fails [Parliament HAS failed] to enact legislation...the CJ yada yada yada. So is THAT senior counsel right that the Chief Justice is a mere messenger?

It would take a squinty-eyed reading of clause 7 to conclude that, wouldn't it? Clause (7) is a consequence of the failure to comply with an order under clause (6) (b), and where the CJ has received a report on the same [a report from the A-G and Parliament].

The CJ isn't merely transmitting a message to the President that the A-G and Parliament have failed to comply with an order under clause (6) (b). He is ADVISING the president of what the order required, and what the consequences of failure to comply mean: dissolution.

The framers of the Constitution designed the exercise of presidential power. It will not be exercised capriciously. It will be wielded by command of the Constitution for the benefit of the people. The design is [or should be] the death knell of the imperial presidency.

All the Muturian hand-wringing as to why Parliament failed to enact the law don't amount to a hill of constitutional beans. Parliament failed to comply with an order under clause (6)(b). The consequences are specified in clause (7): Chief Justice advice, presidential dissolution.

The jiggery-pokery of whether "shall" means "may" or whether or not the President can flip clause (7) the bird and carry on regardless is why so many of you think that the legal profession is founded on the subversion of truth, justice and humanity.