The State and citizens must obey court orders

The decision by the High Court on April 24 to extend the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) deadline for party primaries to May 7 seems to have rubbed election players and some voters the wrong way.

This followed a petition by Angaza Empowerment Network, an NGO operating in the region that successfully moved the court to secure an extension of party nominations deadline. The matter was filed by George Mirigu, a director of Angaza Empowerment Network before Justice Weldon Korir.

In his application, Mirigu argued that the exercise was marred with chaos and faced logistical problems, a fact that anyone who has been closely watching how political parties have been conducting their party primaries cannot dispute.

“From these happenings, IEBC should extend the party primaries,” he submitted, pleading with the court to exercise its powers and order an extension. Convinced that the right of voters to free and fair elections based on universal suffrage was being denied and violated, the court obliged, extending the deadline from April 26 to May 7.

Earlier on Sunday, IEBC Chairman Wafula Chebukati had told parties to conclude their primaries within timelines it had stipulated to allow for preparations for the main elections. On social media where news of the extension first appeared, Mohamed Warsama, a prolific blogger termed it as “interference by courts”.

Social media

“Damn Interfering Courts Extend Nominations to May 7”, he claimed subjectively in a message shared across several social media platforms. Mark Iyadi, aka Makiadi added a conspiracy angle to the development. As far as Iyadi was concerned, the Jubilee party conspired with a friendly NGO and agreed to file the case in a court presided by a friendly judge. In this theory, Iyadi brings IEBC into the mix by claiming that the election body promised not to contest the court decision once made.

Both Warsama’s and Iyadi’s positions are dangerous to the extent that they advance the view that in arriving at the decision; the court was guided by other extraneous considerations and not by the law. The two also left no doubt as to their political leaning when they chose to look at the issue through the prism of political formations.

After adopting the Constitution in 2010, Kenya’s democracy is founded on the premise of the rule of law, and such democratic notions as checks-and-balances, separation of the powers and respect for human rights. We, therefore, get it all wrong when we begin to see courts as “interfering” when discharging their mandate without fear, favour or let.

It does not matter whether it is the Jubilee party, the National Super Alliance (NASA) or any other legal or individual person that benefits immediately. Justice is justice no matter who benefits immediately from its dispensation. In the long run, it is the Kenyan people that are the ultimate beneficiaries, for we all stand to consolidate our democracy by settling on leaders who most merit our vote when nominations are done in an enabling atmosphere, and voters are able to weigh their choices and make informed decisions.

Respect institutions

With more time, parties can repeat polls until the most deserving candidate is nominated, without having the excuse to sit in a boardroom as they have done before to compile a list of nominees who do not have the legitimacy to run in the main elections, let alone leading.

The latitude that Kenyans secured through the Constitution to enjoy their rights and freedoms of expression notwithstanding, it should be recognized that enjoyment of these civil liberties come with the need to respect institutions of governance, including courts that have lawfully come to the rescue of parties aggrieved by executive decisions.

And if sound rulings by the courts amount to interference, that is exactly what they are supposed to achieve – interfere in the execution of policies and laws in a manner deemed to be arbitrary and capricious. Interference that promotes greater enjoyment of rights is welcome and should be repeated time and again until institutions charged with execution of laws and policies appreciate the solemnity of Article 10 of the Constitution on national values and principles of governance.

The National Values and Principles of Governance require all State organs and public officers to adhere to the rule of law, democracy and participation of the people, respect for human rights, good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability in their actions.

That is what Justice Weldon Korir did. As a judge, he acquitted himself well based on the dictates of the Constitution and the law, irrespective of who the applicants were. After all, Article 22 of the Constitution gives every person the right “to institute court proceedings if a right or fundamental freedom has been denied, violated or infringed or is threatened with infringement”.