Supreme Court begins hearing appellants against the BBI judgment
The Attorney General has faulted the Court of
Appeal verdict to stop the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) driven
constitutional review process.
The AG said the Appellate court erred in
stripping the president’s immunity and his right to engage in political
discourse.
The president’s chief legal advisor asked the
Supreme Court to overturn the Court of Appeal verdict, reinstate the president’s
stature as the BBI appeal got underway at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court began a three-day marathon
hearing of the BBI appeals case.
The Attorney General led the onslaught to
resuscitate changes to the Constitution, poking holes in the Court of Appeal's
ruling that declared the review initiative unconstitutional.
The country’s chief legal advisor warned the
Court of Appeal had stripped the president of his immunity while in office.
Lawyer Kamau Karori,
representing the AG, submitted that: “It is necessary that the president has
decisional freedom to make decisions that are key and important to safeguard
the interests of the country. If the president is detracted because of the
fear, every decision he makes may attract civil liability against him. It would
have a chilling effect on the ability of the president to make decisions that
are important to the people of Kenya.”
The Attorney General fiercely defended the
president’s involvement in the push to review the supreme law saying he was
within his rights. This in contrast to the Court of Appeal verdict.
“The only way that the rights of the
president to participate in the initiative or the process can be limited is
that the person who is seeking that limitation must demonstrate compliance with
the provisions of Article 24 of the Constitution. No such demonstration has
been done by any of the parties or by the Court of Appeal itself,” added
Karori.
The AG defended the distribution of the 70
new constituencies saying the move in no way infringed on the mandate of the
electoral commission as ruled by the Court of Appeal.
Karori said: “The people deliberately removed
the mandate of allocation of constituencies from commissions and reserved this
for themselves because the problem that was noted in the Kriegler report was
brought about because the issue of constituencies was left entirely to the ECK.”
IEBC submitted that the Court of Appeal got
it wrong in its verdict that the commission was not properly constituted, asking
the Supreme Court to remedy the position and safeguard the independence of the
commission.
“IEBC was always properly constituted…it had
the quorum mandated by the Constitution itself, and there can be no higher law
than the Constitution,” said Githu Muigai, representing the commission.
With the Court of Appeal indicating that the
commission did not undertake public participation on the BBI referendum bill, IEBC
submitted public participation was not under its purview.
The Attorney General and IEBC case seeks to
overturn the decision that muted the push to change the Constitution backed by
the BBI secretariat and Azimio la Umoja movement leader Raila Odinga.
President Uhuru Kenyatta presents his case on
Wednesday.
Want to send us a story? SMS to 25170 or WhatsApp 0743570000 or Submit on Citizen Digital or email wananchi@royalmedia.co.ke
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a Comment