Why Uhuru, Ruto now on their own

By Isaiah Lucheli

Despite vigorous campaigns it is now clear court would decide whether Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta and Eldoret North MP William Ruto should run for president.

This followed the court decision Thursday rejecting attempts to drag into the case on alleged integrity baggage against Ruto and Uhuru, three other presidential aspirants. They are Prime Minister Raila odinga, Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka, and DPM, Musalia Mudavadi.

This means Uhuru and Ruto, who though running separate campaigns and talk of unity under the umbrella of G7 Alliance, would have to wait longer to know if their names would be on the ballot paper on March 4 elections.

The petitioners are questioning whether the two should be allowed to run for president while facing crimes against humanity charges at the International Criminal Court.

High Court Judges Isaac Lenaola, Mohammed Warsame, and Philomena Mwilu struck out the names of Raila, Musyoka, and Mudavadi based on a technicality from a suit that had sought to enjoin them, questioning their integrity.

Uhuru and Ruto also received a brief reprieve when the amended petition was struck out, but they have been named adversely in the original petition, which the three judges have reverted to.

The suit sought to bar the five presidential aspirants from the race. Raila, Musyoka, and Mudavadi were enjoined to refute allegations touching on their suitability for political office.

The court directed the petitioners, who include Ndhiwa MP, Neto Oyugi of Orange Democratic Movement to serve Uhuru and Ruto because they had been named adversely so that they could decide on whether they would be enjoined as interested parties or respondents.

The other petitioners, Patrick Njuguna and Charles Omanga, who are said to have differed with Neto over the inclusion of the other three, were directed to make up their minds on what they wanted, when the case comes up for mention on October 19.

Justice Lenaola explained the amended petition, which enjoined Raila, Musyoka, and Mudavadi had been done contrary to the rules of engagement and violated the direction given by the court in January.

“The issues that are raised in the petition are of great concern, but parties should be enjoined in the suit without breaching the rules of natural justice and rules of engagement,” said Mwilu.

The judges ruled it was not in the powers of the petitioners to decide who would be enjoined in the suit, noting there was a procedure.

“The amendment and the further amendment were filed without the order of the court and this is contrary to the civil procedure code. The people were enjoined without their consent and the leave of the court,” said Mwilu.

In their petition they are seeking Ruto and Uhuru 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.

In enjoining the Prime Minister, they claimed he did formally complete primary school education and does not have a valid certificate.

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, and his academic and professional qualification used for employment and the terms of the said employment.

They were also accusing Raila of nepotism, grabbing land on which Kisumu Molasses Factory stands, and working as a lecturer at University of Nairobi without clear academic credentials.

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

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

Another relative is Elkana Odembo, who was appointed Kenya’s ambassador to the United States.

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, 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.

The petitioners were also raising issues with Mudavadi’s alleged involvement in the Sh5.6 billion Goldenberg scandal, and the Sh283 million cemetery saga.

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

They further alleged the Sabatia MP grabbed land belonging to City Council of Nairobi in Woodley Estate without following due process.

The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, said the petitioners, sued Mudavadi, over the house that was later surrendered.

In their argument the lawyers representing the five presidential aspirants agreed process of enjoining them in the suit had not followed the procedure.

Lawyer Katwa Kigen, who is representing Ruto, told the court the amended petition was the one that had enjoined Uhuru and Ruto in the suit and argued when the petitioners sought leave to serve, it was misconstrued to mean enjoining the other three.

On his part Senior Counsel George Oraro for Raila explained the process of enjoining people in the suit should not be done through amendments pointing out there was a procedure.

Mr Nzamba Kitonga representing interested parties, however, explained if parties walked out of court because they were improperly enjoined in the suit it would affect them because they would not be part of the petition whereas they have been adversely named.

Lawyer Anthony Oluoch representing the petitioners had appealed to the court not to throw out the petition on a technicality arguing it had attracted a lot of public interest. He also argued it would be a waste of public funds and time for judges and counsel.

Initially, the three petitioners only sought to question the integrity of Uhuru and Ruto following their ICC indictment.

They, however, later changed their minds and asked the High Court to amend the suit papers to include the other three presidential aspirants.

The petitioners had also sought to have Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission barred from accepting nomination papers for election of the five, who have expressed interest in vying for president.

They were 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’’.