Court to rule where buck stops on Opposition's call for mass action

The High Court will on August 26 decide whether or not it will lift a consent order that holds CORD leaders responsible for any chaos that may follow their call for mass action.

Justice Isaac Lenaola said yesterday that in case of any apprehension, the petitioner can come back to court for review.

Justice Lenaola said he would make the ruling after hearing arguments from CORD and Nairobi Senator Mike Sonko, who wants the Opposition leaders barred from calling for mass action during their rallies.

Through lawyer Anthony Oluoch, the coalition stated that it should not be held liable for offences it has no control over.

“Mass action is not violence. The freedoms we enjoy in this country are a product of mass action,” Oluoch said.

He pointed out that the criminal justice system was properly equipped to deal with any violence that could arise.

The order, Justice Lenaola heard, had the effect of transferring the duty of providing security, law and order from the institutions responsible to CORD principals Raila Odinga, Kalonzo Musyoka and Moses Wetang’ula.

The lawyer, teaming up with Siaya Senator James Orengo, told the court that CORD leaders had said in public forums that they wanted national dialogue within the law.

“The petitioner’s pleadings should be clear of the facts complained of so that the respondents can know with clarity what they are being accused of,” Mr Orengo said.

He added: “The freedom of expression is at the heart of our democracy. Though there are limitations, they should be in justifiable circumstances.”

Anxiety and panic

On Tuesday, Principal Secretary in the Ministry of Interior and Co-ordination of National Government Mutea Iringo said CORD’s call for mass action could lead to loss of lives.

In a sworn affidavit before the court, Mr Iringo said utterances had been made in public that led to tension, anxiety and panic.

He supported the orders by Justice Lenaola prohibiting a call for mass action, citing that the orders are in accordance with the law.

“I am apprehensive that the setting aside of the orders may lead to chaos,” said Iringo.

He stated that it was incorrect for the party leaders to feign ignorance and term the order an intrusion by the court on the citizens’ rights.

Sonko, in a sworn affidavit, alleged that the consent order should not be set aside as it was entered into voluntarily without any form of duress.

Through lawyer Harrison Kinyanjui, he urged the court to uphold the order as it would also mean upholding the Constitution.