The Standard (Kenya)
By Standard Digital Reporter
Nairobi, Kenya: Supreme Court proceedings were momentarily disrupted after former presidential candidate and activist Nazlin Omar Rajput attempted to address the judges over an application she had filed.
The activist argued she had filed her petition before court but had not been heard.
It took the intervention of three judges Justices Mohammed Ibrahim, Jackton Boma Ojwang’ and Dr Smokin Wanjala to order Nazlin to follow procedures and respect the authority of the court.
I am here to represent Wanjiku and my case has been filed properly but this court is not giving me a hearing…Nazlin said.
She drew the ire of the judges when she declined to obey orders to sit down even after Justice Ibrahim had said her case was set for Tuesday.
Nazlin persisted that she be heard until justice Ojwang’ reminded her that the court had rules which needed to be followed.
At some point, court orderlies were by her side but they moved back after she sat down.
Justice Wanjala told off Nazlin warning her of dire consequences for disobeying and disrespecting decisions of the court.
He asked Nazlin to respect the authority of the court saying, “the authority of this court has to be respected by Wanjiku and the high and mighty….this court is ready to hear every Kenyan as long as they abide by set rules.”
“This is a court of law and cannot hear you in defiance of the directives issued, this court cannot be held at ransom….defy this order at your own peril,” said Justice Wanjala.
Nazlin agreed to sit and the pre-trial proceedings went on.
The Supreme had convened for the status conference to agree of how the proceeding during hearing.
During the status conference, Attorney General Githu Muigai made an application to be enjoined in the three petitions filed as Amicus Curiae (friend of the court).
Muigai said the office of the AG has a duty to observe on behalf of the public and stated that he will not support any parties.
He said the AG if allowed to be enjoined in the suit, will only provide a brief that will guide the court in making its decision by providing a summary of decisions made on similar cases in other countries.
But lawyers George Oraro representing Prime Minister Raila Odinga and Kethi Kilonzo appearing for African Centre for Open Governance (Africog), a local NGO, opposed the applications while lawyers representing the other parties had no objection.
Lawyers representing all parties also opposed to an application by the Law Society of Kenya to be enjoined in the suit.
The Supreme Court adjourned and will resume at 3pm Monday to deliver rulings and hear two applications.
The Supreme Court had set the pre-trial hearing for three petitions filed to challenge the election of Uhuru Kenyatta
In his petition, Raila has sought several declarations from the Supreme Court, among them those that could, if granted, force fresh presidential elections through invalidation of the recent poll.
The Coalition for Reforms and Democracy (CORD) presidential candidate in the just concluded race also wants the court to declare the entire voters’ register as well as the election itself flawed.
He is also seeking a declaration form the court that it finds no presidential candidate met the threshold of 50 per cent plus one vote to avoid a runoff. This is contrary to the IEBC’s insistence that Uhuru meet the threshold and should be sworn into office.
On its part the IEBC accuses CORD of using incorrect provisional figures to challenge the voters’ register’s accuracy. It dismisses allegations of irregularities and says it declared the Jubilee alliance candidate “properly and constitutionally”.
IEBC argues the petition filed on behalf of CORD’s candidate, challenging the outcome of the elections is riddled with “misrepresentations” and “misconceptions” about the voters’ register, the tallying process and the legal framework guiding the election.
President-elect Uhuru has dismissed Raila’s petition saying it is replete with falsehoods and is a robust effort to exaggerate facts to secure him an unfair advantage.
He argues that the Constitution does not require IEBC to use electronic election transmission system as Raila argues. He further notes that the petition is an expression of bitterness from Raila’s loss of the poll and that the ultimate objective is to carry out a constitutional coup through the Supreme Court.
Both Uhuru and his designated deputy Mr William Ruto have produced video clips in which Raila and his supporters are captured making statements and comments on the elections before and after filing the petition. standard