Suit seeks to block five presidential aspirants

By JUDY OGUTU

Barring an appeal, five contenders for the presidency now face the likely prospect of having to justify their bids for State House in court.

This follows a decision by the High Court to accept the inclusion of the names of Prime Minister Raila Odinga, Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka and Deputy Prime Minister Musalia Mudavadi in a suit seeking to bar Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and Eldoret North MP William Ruto from the contest. Petitioners in the case want Raila, Kalonzo and Mudavadi to refute several allegations touching on their suitability for political office or else be barred from the race for State House.

Initially, the three petitioners only sought to derail the campaigns of Uhuru and Ruto, but changed their mind a fortnight ago when they asked the High Court to amend the suit papers to include the other three presidential candidates.

High Court judge, Justice Isaac Lenaola approved the amendments to the initial suit by Mr Patrick Njuguna, Mr Augustino Netto, Mr Charles Omanga and others and fixed the hearing date for September 27.

Justices Lenaola, Mohamed Warsame and Philomena Mwilu will hear the case.

The petitioners want the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) barred from accepting nominations for election of the five who have expressed interest in vying for presidency.

They are asking the court to order the five Presidential hopefuls to provide information, documents and other relevant materials “to assist them and the court” to make inquiry, publicly examine, cross-examine and assess the eligibility and their competence.

According to them, Raila did not undertake and formally complete primary school education and does not have a valid certificate.

“He has not stated or shown that he ever completed that stage,” the petitioners claim.

Academic qualification

They also want the Registrar of University of Nairobi to provide a file in respect of

Raila for the institution’s calendar of 1970-1974, as well as his academic and professional qualification used for employment and the terms of the said employment.

In addition, they want to be furnished with information on the circumstances that led to Raila’s exit from the university.

The Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Education should also provide the court with a list of international universities and colleges that were recognized in Kenya between 1962 and 1974.

Education PS should also supply the court with information on whether academic institutions in East Germany were recognized in Kenya for purposes of training of students in Kenya.

They are also seeking for information on when Maranda Secondary School was started.

In addition, they want PS in charge of defence to provide details of the 1982 attempted coup including the cost, casualties, fate of plotters and the extent of Raila’s involvement.

They are accusing Raila of nepotism, grabbing land on which molasses Kisumu plant stands and working as a lecturer at University of Nairobi without having clear academic credentials.

It is also their claim that Raila helped his sisters and relatives get jobs in government.

According to them the Prime Minister helped Dr Wenwa Akinyi Odinga who is consul general Los Angeles and Beryl Achieng Odinga who was allegedly appointed to Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme as chairperson.

Another relative is Elkana Odembo who was appointed Kenya’s ambassador to US.

Concerning Kalonzo, the activists claim he used his office to acquire a radio frequency and also unlawfully authorised the illegal sale of the Embassy of Somalia in Nairobi.

The petitioners want the High Court Registrar to furnish the court with files in respect of the Somali Embassy case involving Ahmed Sheil Mohamed and Rehemtulla Omar and Zarina Suleiman Omar.

Kalonzo, they claim, was found guilty of contempt of court and fraud in a case filed in 1990 before the High Court.

They allege that in that case, Judge Frank Shields found Kalonzo was involved in “a serious and appalling fraud.” According to the documents filed in court, the case in which Kalonzo was convicted was that Matunda estate owned land, which it proposed to sell at Sh15 million.

The petitioners allege that Musyoka and Wambua Advocates represented Access Insurance Company, which was the purchaser.

Thereafter, the law firm registered the transfer in favor of the purchaser without paying the balance of purchase price.

The petitioners have raised questions on how Kalonzo allegedly acquired public land in Yatta and Masangoleni settlement scheme “using his influence.”

They allege that the land in question, which is situated in Yatta and measures 200 acres, originally belonged to National Youth Service, but now belongs to the Vice President.

The activists are also raising issues with Mudavadi’s alleged involvement in the Sh5.6 billion Goldenberg scandal and the Sh283 million cemetery scandal.

It is their claim that Mudavadi committed perjury and misled the commission that investigated the mega scandal.

They further allege that the Deputy Prime Minister grabbed land belonging to the City Council of Nairobi in Woodley estate without following due process. The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), said the petitioners, sued Mudavadi, over the house that was later surrendered.

Maize scandal

They also want “the special and undiluted version of the Ndung’u-led Commission’s report on land presented to the Cabinet, especially with in respect to the Kisumu Molasses Plant land.

As far as Mudavadi is concerned, they want the court provided with information regarding his alleged links to the dealings on the Woodley house.

All the named respondents should also be summoned to appear in court to answer questions and respond to inquiries that form the subject of “integrity allegations against them.”

On Uhuru and Ruto, they want them to respond to inquiries concerning their role, if any, in planning, financing and executing post-election violence.

In addition, they want Ruto to explain his role in the maize scandal.

Njuguna, in a sworn statement in support of the case, argues that the information being sought for is readily available in the departments listed and each of the respondents has to be heard on the claims. “There is abundant need for inquiry and examination on the issues of integrity. It is in public interest,” he claims.