A heated legal battle is unfolding at the Milimani Law Courts after petitioners accused Parliament of contempt for proceeding with the gazettement of Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) commissioners despite court orders to halt the process.
Led by veteran lawyer Paul Muite, the petitioners claimed the National Assembly, under Speaker Moses Wetang’ula, defied conservatory orders from both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The orders had temporarily stopped the vetting and approval of the commissioners pending the outcome of a petition challenging the legality of the nomination process.
“It is our submission that the National Assembly whose Speaker is Moses Wetang’ula, who happens to be my personal friend has acted in contempt,” said Muite. He further asserted that Wetang’ula’s dual roles as Speaker and Ford-Kenya Party Leader present a conflict of interest, noting that the court had already found the two roles incompatible.
The core of the petitioners’ argument is that the entire process of appointing new IEBC commissioners culminating in President William Ruto’s gazettement of the appointments on June 10 is flawed. They argue that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the ruling Kenya Kwanza coalition and the opposition Azimio la Umoja coalition, which formed the basis of the selection process, is unconstitutional.
Quoting Article 3(2) of the Constitution, Muite said, “Any attempt to establish a government contrary to the Constitution is unlawful and unconstitutional.”
In their defense, the National Assembly and the Executive argued that suspending the appointment process would jeopardize the country’s preparations for the 2027 General Election and undermine public participation in a constitutionally mandated process.
The court acknowledged the seriousness of the issues raised but refrained from issuing an immediate ruling. “We do appreciate these are important issues, but we are not making a determination now,” the presiding judge said, indicating that a ruling will be delivered in due course.
At the heart of the petition is the claim that some of the appointees do not meet the constitutional requirements for the IEBC role, further casting doubt on the legality of the entire process.
