The legality of the recent vetting and appointment of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) commissioners has come under intense scrutiny, with arguments presented before a three-judge bench at the Milimani High Court. A petition challenging the appointments asserts that the National Assembly, which conducted the vetting, was not properly constituted at the time and thus lacked the capacity to make objective decisions.
Senior Counsel Paul Muite, representing the petitioners, contended that the National Assembly, under the current leadership of Speaker Moses Wetang’ula, cannot function independently. He questioned the impartiality and legality of a parliamentary process chaired by a speaker who, he claimed, is in contempt of court orders and holds conflicting roles in public office and political leadership.
Muite emphasized that the Speaker’s dual role as both the head of the legislative house and the chairperson of a political party, Ford Kenya, undermines the constitutional requirement for neutrality. He referred to previous judicial decisions that held such dual roles as unconstitutional—a ruling upheld by the Court of Appeal.
According to the petitioners, these circumstances cast serious doubt on the legality and integrity of the entire vetting process. Muite warned that proceeding under such flawed conditions could have grave implications for the country, especially with the next general elections scheduled for 2027.
While acknowledging the urgency of establishing a functional electoral commission, he cautioned against rushing the process. “If we hurry under improper legal conditions, we risk compromising the credibility and functionality of the institution tasked with managing our elections,” Muite argued. He urged the court to take a principled stance rather than yielding to time pressures.
On the other side, the Attorney General, through State Counsel Emmanuel Bitta, refused to address allegations that President William Ruto had defied a court order by gazetting the IEBC commissioners. Bitta noted that the government had not been served with a formal contempt application and therefore could not respond to oral submissions raised by the petitioners.
Bitta further questioned the procedure used by the petitioners, arguing that an application for contempt, being serious and punitive in nature, must be formally lodged and cannot be prosecuted orally in court. He urged the bench to dismiss the oral contempt claims as procedurally flawed.
The court, composed of Justices John Chigiti, Roselyne Aburili, and Bahati Mwamuye, adjourned the hearing. A decision on whether to allow the contempt proceedings against the President, as well as the date for delivering a judgment on the main petition, is expected on June 24, 2025, at 2:00 PM.
