Attorney General Dorcas Oduor has filed a preliminary objection in court, challenging the admissibility of a petition seeking to halt the nomination process of commissioners to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC). The petition, which targets the process initiated by President William Ruto, alleges procedural flaws and seeks to stop the vetting and approval of the nominees by the National Assembly.
However, in her legal response, the Attorney General argues that the petition is non-justiciable, citing the principle of ripeness — a legal doctrine that bars courts from ruling on issues that are premature or speculative. She contends that the petitioner has failed to exhaust all constitutionally mandated remedies before approaching the court, thereby violating the doctrine of exhaustion.
According to Oduor, “The exercise of jurisdiction by this Honourable Court at this stage of the appointment process of commissioners to an independent constitutional commission would contravene the doctrine of separation of powers and amount to a usurpation of the legislature’s primary role in the approval process.”
The AG maintains that allowing the petition to proceed would interfere with the constitutional mandate of the National Assembly, which is tasked with vetting and approving nominees to independent commissions. She emphasizes that the legislative process must be allowed to run its full course before any judicial intervention is considered.
The petitioners, on the other hand, argue that the nomination process is fundamentally flawed and poses an imminent risk to the integrity of the commission, especially if the National Assembly proceeds to approve the nominees. They claim that rushing through the vetting process despite procedural irregularities could undermine public confidence in the IEBC.
With the vetting process looming, the court now faces a delicate decision: whether to uphold the doctrines of separation of powers and ripeness, as argued by the AG, or to intervene in what the petitioners view as a compromised and unconstitutional process.
The ruling on the preliminary objection will be key in determining whether the judiciary can weigh in on the matter at this stage or if it must defer to Parliament’s role in the ongoing nomination process.
