Azimio deputy principal Martha Karua has joined the battle against the government over whether a decision by the Supreme Court can be challenged at the East Africa Court of Justice.
The apex court ruled that it is only fair to allow Karua to join the dispute since it was her cases at the EACJ court that prompted the government through Attorney General Justin Muturi to seek an advisory opinion on whether decisions from the top court can be reviewed.
“We are of the view that Karua has an interest in the case in light of the suits she has filed before the EACJ. In the pertaining circumstances, her participation is essential for her to put forth her position and for us to appreciate diverse positions concerning the subject dispute,” ruled the judges.
Karua and Muslim for Human Rights (Muhuri) chairperson Khelef Khalifa in October last year filed an application at the Arusha-based East Africa Court of Justice to challenge the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold President William Ruto’s victory in the 2022 election.
However, the AG moved to the Supreme Court seeking an advisory opinion on whether any Kenyan can challenge a final decision from the court at any other international or regional court.
The AG also wants the top court to determine what would be the legal consequence upon the Government of Kenya and the sovereignty of the people of Kenya, if orders of the EACJ are based on different interpretations of Kenyan law.
“The court also needs to determine the legal effect of a finding by the EACJ that a national court, including the Supreme Court, did not adhere to legal principles including natural justice and the rule of law, in a case heard and determined by the national court,” said the AG in his application.
Karua in her application before the regional court claimed that the Supreme Court failed and violated the rights of millions of Kenyans in their determination of the presidential election petition.
“The conduct of the proceedings and the resultant decision by the Supreme Court of Kenya violated not only the constitution but all known laws in Kenya. The judges failed, neglected and refused to ensure that Kenyans aggrieved by the election results got justice,” said Karua.
Karua and Khalifa raised eight claims against the apex court which they argue made their decision to uphold the election of President Ruto illegal, and 11 claims against the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) over their conduct in the August general election.
It was the second time Karua moved to EACJ to contest decisions by the Supreme Court. She was awarded Sh2 million as compensation on account that the apex court did not give her a fair hearing when she challenged the election of Kirinyaga Governor Anne Waiguru in 2017.
Karua and Khalifa accused Chief Justice Martha Koome and Supreme Court judges Philomena Mwilu, Smokin Wanjala, Mohamed Ibrahim, Njoki Ndung’u, Isaac Lenaola and William Ouko of failing in their duties by rendering a judgement that did not reflect the evidence of electoral malpractices.
“The judges failed and refused to correctly determine the dispute when they used inappropriate reasoning in the circumstances. They failed to ensure all parties were accorded fair trial and refused to provide adequate scrutiny of the elections,” says petition.