Assemblies free to debate Aukot bill, High Court rules
County Assemblies can now debate the Punguza Mizigo bill after the High Court lifted orders barring them from doing so.
Justice John Mativo lifted the orders after lawyers representing David Kamau Ngari and International Economic Law Centre, who were the petitioners in the case, failed to appear in court.
“I am compelled to dismiss the notice of motion dated July 24 for non-attendance and because they are not here to prosecute their application. The said application is, therefore, dismissed. For avoidance of doubt, the conservatory orders are hereby discharged,” ruled Mativo.
The petitioners had been given temporary orders of 14 days on July 30 to allow parties in the suit to file their responses. However, when the matter came up yesterday, their lawyers were not present in court.
Ngari and the organisation had named the 47 county Assemblies, Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), Thirdway Alliance Kenya and the two Speakers of Parliament as respondents in the suit.
Council of Governors, Jubilee Party, Orange Democratic Movement and Elections Observation Group were also named as interested parties.
Lack competence
In their suit papers, the petitioners accused IEBC of unconstitutionally, illegally and irregularly approving the Punguza Mizigo bill presented by Thirdway Alliance.
They claimed IEBC as currently constituted lacks constitutional competence and technical capacity to admit, process and approve the proposed bill and the supporting lists and signatures of registered voters.
“The drafting faults in the bill are fatal and passing it risks throwing the legal and administrative system of Kenya into unprecedented confusion and chaos,” said their lawyer James Mamboleo in court documents.
The petitioners also held that IEBC did not undertake public participation in respect to the verification process yet it is crucial under Article 20 of the Constitution.
In response, however, Thirdway leader Ekuru Aukot asked the court to dismiss the suit, saying the court had no power to alter or vary constitutional timelines set out in Article 257(6).
“The allegations by the applicant that the receiving of the said draft bill and signatures was done silently and secretly are untrue,” he said.
