- A petition to oppose Kithure Kindiki’s inauguration as deputy president was postponed after the respondents failed to fulfill the judiciary
- The complainant claimed that the whole process was not constitutional, thus raising concerns about systematic flaws and abuse of office
- The Supreme Court set another date for the hearing, as the complainant wants the case to be linked to the ongoing constitutional application
What was expected to be a severe legal tension turned into a coordinated dispute in the High Court in Nairobi.
Source: Facebook
This is after the court postponed the hearing of a petition to oppose the dismissal of former deputy president Rigathi Gachagua and the appointment of Kithure Kindiki as his successor.
The three judges of the judges including judges Anthony Mrima, Eric Ogola and Fridah Mugambi were scheduled to start the trial on July 7.
However, the case was stuck after the respondents, including the Senate and the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), failed to submit their response within the time set by the court.
The request was submitted by Joseph Enock Aura, a Kenyan citizen, through his lawyer Harrison Kinyanjui.
Aura opposes the constitutional legitimacy of the removal of Gachagua and the appointment and inauguration of the Kindiki. The case is now moved forward until October 2.
Why did the court postpone the hearing of the case?
According to Kinyanjui, although the complainants were given important court documents on May 29, they had not submitted any response to the time of the hearing.
Indeed, a receipt from the Senate and IEBC They were presented only on the morning of the hearing, prompting the court to postpone the case.
The delay also affected Aura’s request to extend the current bench of three judges to the bench of five judges.
The court gave the complainants 14 days from May 29 to respond to this request, which they failed to do. Kinyanjui told the court that the failure had greatly affected his client’s case.
He also revealed that Aura appealed a preliminary decision of the same court to separate his request from other linked cases that raise similar constitutional questions.
He said that there was no legitimate reason to allocate the Aura case and that such divisions threatened to create conflicting judgments, violating the established court policy.
The bench advised Aura to apply for a hearing for his request and others, so that the court could evaluate the matter more fully.
What are the main issues raised in the Aura request?
The Aura’s request promotes several important legal claims. First, he questions the constitutional legitimacy of Kindiki as deputy president on November 1, 2024.
He argued that the process was basically flawed because there was no IEBC that was legally designed at the time to manage the process, making it invalid.
Aura also claimed that Kindiki failed to resign as the secretary of the interior cabinet before his appointment, which prevented him from replacing the Deputy President.
In addition, he argued that the swearing -in ceremony was held for a public holiday that was not legally announced, as the position of the interior minister was open at the time.
In court papers, Kinyanjui claimed that no complainant denied or answered these allegations through the affidavit. He referred to the whole process of the nomination as a violation of the Constitution, emphasizing that the celebrations had been revoked earlier.
Is Kindiki a legitimate deputy?
Aura sought numerous statements, including the one that nullifies the nomination of Kindiki and prevented him from using any authority related to the Deputy President’s Office.
He also claimed that Kindiki did not come before the National Assembly to be reviewed and no report was submitted or approved by Parliament and thus made the whole process illegal.
The request also requested that the case be heard in the open court, to ensure transparency and public accountability.
The case was postponed until October 2.
Source: Original
Can Kindiki be removed from the office at a court order?
Kindiki could be prevented from entering the deputy president’s office by a court order issued by the Kerugoya High Court on October 18 2024.
In the ongoing counsel, the court will only declare itself on the validity of the process in which Kindiki holds the post of second general.
If it considers the process to be illegal, the court will issue the statement, but will not reach the point of ordering Kindiki to come out of office. It will be up to the applicants to decide what to do with the sentence.
However, if the judgment is issued, it will ruin Kindiki’s reputation and question his legitimacy.
Read English version
Do you have an exciting information that you would like to publish? Please, contact us via news@tuko.co.ke or WhatsApp: 0732482690.
Source: TUKO.co.ke
