The National Assembly faced a reversal when the Court of Appeal refused to halt an order stating that Speaker Moses Wetangula had acted illegally in designating the Kenya Kwanza alliance as the dominant group within the legislature.
Justices Daniel Musinga, Mumbi Ngungi, and Francis Tuiyot stated that there was no proof indicating the High Court’s ruling had interfered with the operations of the National Assembly. Should anything be noted, the court pointed out that sessions within the assembly continued despite the High Court’s ruling.
The appellate judges stated that there isn’t enough evidence presented to suggest the operations of the National Assembly will come to a standstill unless the requested orders are issued.
They acknowledged Wetangula's ruling from February 12, which stated that the National Assembly kept performing its functions despite the "acrimonious" atmosphere.
When seeking the court’s approval for a stay order, the National Assembly argued that the High Court ruling had interfered with its functioning, notably affecting the establishment of crucial committees.
They designated the House business committee, which holds a crucial position in overseeing the legislative schedule and guaranteeing the efficient operation of parliamentary affairs.
It was argued additionally that due to the lack of clear identification between majority and minority parties along with their leaders, establishing at least 17 crucial committees such as the Budget and Appropriations Committee and the Public Accounts Committee has been rendered unfeasible.
They emphasized again that the High Court ruling has led to confusion, uncertainty, and a deadlock in the National Assembly.
The applicants further argued that there is a potential risk of contempt of court charges being brought against the Speaker of the National Assembly subsequent to the High Court ruling which stated that he cannot concurrently serve as both the Speaker and the head of Ford Kenya Party.
Nevertheless, the respondents, including Kenneth Njagi, who initiated the case at the High Court, stated that the sole reason Parliament was seeking stays on the High Court ruling was due to the decision concerning the dual responsibilities of the Speaker.
Regarding this matter, the appellate judges stated that the appropriate venue for examining whether the Speaker has adhered to or disregarded the High Court’s orders would be through contempt of court proceedings initiated in the same court.
On February 7, Justices Jairus Ngaah, John Chigiti, and Lawrence Mugambi ruled that determining which group or alliance holds the majority position in Kenya’s National Assembly for the 13th parliamentary term rests with the electorate's sovereign decision made during the August 9, 2022 general elections.
The bench similarly overturned Wetangula's ruling from October 6, 2022, which had designated Kenya Kwanza as the majority party in the House.
In their ruling, the judges stated that Wetangula behaved unreasonably by allocating the 14 members of the Azimio coalition, who had left the group, to the Kenya Kwanza alliance.
Wetangula asserted that numerous Azimio members had officially submitted letters to his office renouncing their connection with the political group led by Raila Odinga.
The group consists of 14 Members of Parliament from four different parties: the United Democratic Movement (UDM), the Movement for Democracy and Growth (MDG), Maendeleo Chap Chap (MCC), and the Pamoja African Alliance (PAA). However, the judge stated that when he submitted an affidavit in court to contest the case, he did not present any proof of post-election accords involving the mentioned parties and the Kenya Kwanza alliance.
Wetangula asserted that both sides signed and submitted the accords to the registrar of political parties. However, the judges stressed that without any evidence, Wetang'ula’s ruling should not be permitted to prevail.
"The bench noted that even Kimani Ichung'wah, who claimed to have submitted the agreements in Parliament during discussions about the matter of majority and minority, has failed to present any such documentation in court," they stated.
0 Comments