Supreme Court begins hearing Kenya presidential petition

Kenya’s Supreme Court  on Sunday allowed allowed Attorney General Githu Muigai and the Law Society of Kenya to participate in the presidential petition as amicus curiae -friends of the court.

However, the court disallowed Applications by lawyer Charles Kanjama and the Information Communication Association (ITCA).

The seven-member Bench, chaired by Chief Justice David Maraga,did not complete rulings on an application by NASA to access IEBC servers.

However, it admitted all evidence in the presidential petition.

“We have considered the applications and the contest that they were filed out of time. We, however, find that the documents will not undermine the court’s ability to determine the case and no party will suffer prejudice if they are retained in the court records,” ruled the judges.

Read: 

• Kenya Judiciary: Next battle front for aggrieved and dissatisfied candidates with electoral disputes
• Kenya’s opposition party to challenge Uhuru’s re-election in Supreme court

The ruling will be made on Monday(today) morning ahead of the hearing of the petition at 9am.

“Immediately after the delivery of that ruling, we shall commence the hearing,” Maraga said
Other judges of the bench include:  Justices Maraga, Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu and Justices Jackton Ojwang, Mohamed Ibrahim, Njoki Ndung’u, Smokin Wanjala and Isaac Lenaola.

The court allowed two presidential candidates Michael Mwaura Wainaina and Ekuru Aukot to participate in the hearing of the petition as interested parties because they stand to be directly affected by the outcome.

“Prof Wainaina and Dr Aukot actively participated in the elections and have a stake in the outcome of this petition. They are justified to join the petition as interested parties,” ruled the judges.

Attorney General Githu Muigai and the Law Society of Kenya will appear as friends of the court but their advisory roles will be restricted to the Elections Act and the interpretation of the recent Court of Appeal decision that confirmed that results from polling stations are final.

““We have noticed that many issues the AG wants to submit on have already been mentioned by the other parties in the case. We will allow him to participate but only limited to one issue of advising the court on the effect of the Court of Appeal decision on tallying of presidential results,” said Maraga.