Appeal judges ruling on referendum question faulted
Lawyer Morara Omoke yesterday opposed the Court Appeal’s decision that a referendum on multiple amendments of the Constitution, like the BBI Bill, can be submitted as a single question to voters.
Omoke, alongside Topua Lesinko, argued that a referendum with a Yes or No question on 74 amendments would be dangerous and not good for the country.
His submission was that a single question will not enable the people to have a clear picture of the exact issue they are being called to vote on.
“It will decimate the Constitution. I’m being put in a dilemma as a citizen when I am taking a vote on that kind of a bill,” he argued.
Omoke, who is one of the appellants, says an omnibus bill would be a violation of the principles of election and freedom and right to vote.
“We urge the court to reach a conclusion that we should always have separate and distinct questions. We should have a draft bill only raising or rather containing only one single amendment,” he argued.
According to him, the principle of public participation requires the public to be accorded an opportunity to participate in the referendum process by being allowed to decide whether they support each proposed amendment to the Constitution.
Omoke (pictured) also weighed in on the issue of quorum of IEBC and asked the Supreme Court to distinguish between composition of IEBC and its quorum.
“Quorum is a different question. It is about the functionality…The day-to-day operation of a Commission and decision making. You cannot ignore quorum because if we say that, we operate without the correct process and that would be very dangerous as we know the role that IEBC plays in our country,” he argued.
Activist Isaac Oluchier, who also made his submissions yesterday, argued that the basic structure doctrine does not apply to Kenya’s Constitution.
