Supreme Court judges deny intimidation by President Uhuru

Supreme court judges Smokin Wanjala(left) Deputy Chief Justice Philemona Mwilu(centre),Chief justice David Maraga,Jackton Ojwang and Isaac Lenaola at the supreme court during the reading of the verdict that upheld President Uhuru Kenyatta’s victory (Photo: Beverlyne Musili| Standard)

The Supreme Court judges have denied they were intimidated by President Uhuru Kenyatta’s utterances after they nullified the results of the August 8 presidential election.

The six judges who heard petitions challenging the results of the repeat polls observed that the President had shown willingness to comply with the decision of the court, contrary to arguments by petitioners Njonjo Mue and Khelef Khalifa presented in court.

“No judge of this court was intimidated by the choice of words from the third respondent,” the judges said in a verdict read on their behalf by Justice Smokin Wanjala.

In their case, Khelef and Mue argued the October 26 election was based on intimidation and violence by the State.

They claimed the President had referred the Supreme Court judges as wakora (crooks) after they nullified his win in their ruling on September 1. They claimed Uhuru also issued a threat that he would revisit the issue after the October 26 election.

Military attire

The petitioners also argued Jubilee party leaders recruited and oversaw oath-taking of women who wore military attire. But the judges found that there was no evidence to show Jubilee was to blame for the violence that rocked the country. On claims the Government used State resources to advertise itself, the judges ruled the petitioners did not give evidence showing President Uhuru defied court orders blocking the Government from advertising its achievements.

“The issue was before the High Court and was determined. Petitioners did not indicate the Government was in violation of its order. There is insufficient evidence to show the Government continued to advertise its achievements during the 60 days of the fresh election,” they ruled.

The court also found that presidential candidate Cyrus Jirongo was properly placed on the ballot.

Bankruptcy verdict

The court said although the bankruptcy verdict against Jirongo had automatically locked him out of the re-run, he sought stay orders, which in turn meant he would still be in the race until the issue is determined.

On hiring of returning officers, the court found that they were properly at work as the Court of Appeal had overturned a High Court decision that had termed their appointment illegal.

“The current stand is that appointment of returning officers carried legal validity,” the judges ruled in the verdict read by Justice Jackton Ojwang. “The officers lawfully carried out their mandate as there were stay orders in place.”