The court has been told that the National Assembly, which vetted and approved the appointment of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) commissioners, is not properly constituted.
Senior Counsel Paul Muite argues that the National Assembly cannot work independently and objectively under the current leadership of Speaker Moses Masika Wetang’ula.
“That National Assembly, chaired by that speaker when the National Assembly was verifying these commissioners, is not a National Assembly that can act independently and objectively,” Counsel Muite told the court.
“As currently constituted, the National Assembly is not in a position to conduct the vetting of the people whom it recommended,” Lawyer Muite told the court.
According to Muite, Speaker Wetang’ula, who has defied court orders, plays a key role in the National Assembly, and he cannot lead when he is already in contempt of court orders.
He stated that in a ruling delivered by a three-judge bench, the speaker of the National Assembly cannot continue to be the speaker and at the same time the chairman of the Ford Kenya political party.
Additionally, he said that the judgement by the High Court on the same was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
Lawyer Muite also stated that he appreciates everyone’s concern that the country must have a commission because the elections are in 2027, and there are many things that the commission is supposed to do.
Why the rush
However, he said that the nation should not rush to get the commission because of the limited time.
“I accept that, but let us look at the evil if we are going to have a commission by rushing that we should not have, we rushing the nation of Kenya into a hole, so let us not be told of the limited time,” Lawyer Muite told the court.
Meanwhile, the Attorney General Dorcas Odour, through her lawyer, has declined to respond to claims that President William Ruto defied a court order by gazetting the IEBC.
Through the State Counsel Emmanuel Bitta, the Attorney General told the court that they had not been formally served with an application for contempt of court, and they cannot respond to the allegations raised by the petitioners’ lawyers during oral submissions.
He said that they were not in any position to comment on the issue of defying court orders as submitted by the petitioners’ lawyers.
“I have heard that the petitioners were seeking to make an oral application for contempt of court. We have not been served with any formal application on the issue of contempt,” lawyer Bitta told the court.
He further challenged the legality of the contempt application, arguing that it could not be orally prosecuted and must follow due process, given its punitive nature.
“You will realise contempt is individual and punitive and affects the liberty of the contemnor, and it cannot be prosecuted orally. That application and the ruling being sought are misplaced,” he stated.
The hearing has been adjourned to June 23, 2025, at 2 pm, when the three-judge bench will give a direction on the ruling for contempt of court application against the President and a judgment date on the main petition.
