be used as a tool for the government of the day to remain in power despite its waning popularity in the future. While the President may block certain appointments to the council, he cannot remove a permanent member from his seat. In fact, it does not appear that any person has the power to do so. The door may be open for potential abuse with appointments based on some political agenda rather than merit. The counterpoint is that it is precisely those in power who are best placed to scrutinize bills for illegitimate differentiating measures, because "it is often those with political affiliations who can make the biggest contribution to the discussion; if nothing else, from the folly and error of their past ways". The presence of judicial members on the Council may also pose additional problems. There is a possibility of conflict of interest for judges who sit as members of the Council if they find themselves having to review the very Acts of Parliament that they have either endorsed or rejected previously. This is exacerbated by the fact that the council, in examining the legitimacy of Bills, plays a quasi-judicial role. There may be confusion as regards the legality of a piece of legislation if, for example, it was initially condemned by the council but enacted by the Government and later endorsed by the courts upon judicial review. When the potential conflict between the Chief Justice's role as head of the judiciary and as chairman of the council was raised in 2010 by Githu Muigai, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Tolerance, he was informed that the Chief Justice would recuse himself from any matter in which a conflict arose. On the other hand, it has been suggested that the enactment of a statute by Parliament in the face of an adverse report by the PCMR should be taken as a "mere disagreement over the interpretation of the Constitution and thus should not foreclose judicial review". However, this depends on whether the statute in question is a constitutional amendment or an ordinary Act of Parliament. Acts of Parliament may be disputed in court for their lack of compliance with the Constitution, but constitutional amendments may not be. Further, scrutinizing legislation to determine if it contravenes fundamental liberties is traditionally the function of the judiciary. Even though the PCMR can