President William Ruto’s nominees to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) have suffered a setback after the High Court issued conservatory orders halting their vetting and approval by the National Assembly.
In a ruling delivered on Monday, Justice Lawrence Mugambi temporarily stopped Parliament from proceeding with the vetting of the seven nominees, including chairperson nominee Erastus Edung Ethekon, until May 29, when the court is expected to issue a final determination on the matter.
The court intervention follows a petition filed by two citizens, Kelvin Omondi and Boniface Mwangi, who are challenging the legality and transparency of the selection process.
The duo, represented by lawyers Paul Muite and Ochieng Odinga, argues that the process was marred by irregularities, violated constitutional provisions, and failed to uphold public participation.
“The nomination process was marred by irregularities, lacked transparency, and violated key constitutional provisions, including those guaranteeing merit-based appointments, regional and ethnic balance, and inclusion of persons with disabilities,” stated the lawyers in their submission.
The petitioners took issue with the inclusion of certain nominees, particularly Commissioner Hassan Noor, whose name, they claim, was never part of the initial shortlist or advertised list.
Senior Counsel Paul Muite described the inclusion as a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules.
“We are raising the issue of the fifth Commissioner, Hassan Noor, who was not shortlisted in the initial process. He was not in the advertising list made by the selection panel,” Muite told the court.
The legal team further contended that moving forward with the vetting before these issues are resolved would undermine the integrity of the electoral body and risk future political instability.
The Attorney General’s Office, strongly opposed the court’s intervention.
Through Chief State Counsel Emmanuel Bitta argued that the petition was premature and amounted to judicial overreach.
“The petition is non-justiciable on account of having been instituted contrary to the principle of ripeness,” Bitta submitted. “The petitioner has not exhausted constitutionally provided remedies before invoking the court’s jurisdiction.”
