Peter Munya to stay in office until case decided

By KURIAN MUSA

Meru, Kenya: Embattled Meru Governor Peter Munya will continue being in office until April 2, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The court will then deliver a ruling on whether or not to nullify his election.

Before the Supreme Court judges Smokin Wanjala and Jackton Ojwang’, Governor Munya’s lawyers had lodged their case seeking the court to suspend the swearing in of Meru Speaker in acting capacity to head the county for 60 days.

Munya, who was represented by lawyers Okong’o Omogeni and Prof Tom Ojienda, got his wish.

On Monday, Munya moved to the Supreme Court and told the judges plans were underway to conduct the swearing in ceremony of the Speaker yet he still had a matter before the lower court that was yet to be decided.

“If the Speaker is sworn in, it will pave way for the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to declare the seat vacant and start announcing the by-election date,” Omogeni told the judges on Munya’s behalf.

Munya pleaded with the Court to move in and stop the ceremony.

“The status quo remains as the plans for swearing in the Meru speaker are barred till the ruling and directions of the court,” Justice Wanjala added.

Prof Ojienda had asked the court to consider suspending the decision of the Appeal Court for public interest so as not to infringe on the constitutional rights of the governor and the taxpayer.

Ojienda braved the attacks from the defence lawyer Muthomi Thiankolu, who argued that there were no constitutional issues raised in the petition that sought interpretation of specific areas of Constitution before the bench.

“We have seen cases where the courts decide not to issue orders and later the electoral commission is found in a position where it spends money planning elections and candidates spending colossal amounts of money and the decision is reverted,” Ojienda said.

Grounds of appeal

Prof Ojienda supported the suspension of the decision of the appellate court, saying it amounted to gross contravention of the Article 182 of the Constitution, and asked the court to interpret the law guided by public policy.

Omogeni submitted that the respondents did not run for the governor’s post and that there would be no prejudice suffered if the court suspended the appellate court’s decision.

“My client ran for the post and will suffer directly and has right to hold office under Article 38 of the Constitution,” Omogeni told the judges.

Thiankolu argued that matters in dispute were not constitutional issues but an election dispute.

“At face of the petition, the grounds of appeal are lost. There is no breach of fundamental human rights raised. And they don’t show where the appeal judges breached the rights,” concluded the defence.