+ Post your Story

For Enquiries Chat with us on Whatsapp on 0712 538 802

News
Arguments that saw NASA locked out of the Presidential petition
By Fay Ngina | Updated Nov 15, 2017 at 11:10 EAT
arguments-that-saw-nasa-locked-out-of-the-presidential-petition
The Supreme Court of Kenya
SUMMARY
  • Raila Odinga and his running mate Kalonzo Musyoka were locked out of a petition filed by Mr Khelef Khalifa and Mr Njonjo Mue
  • President Uhuru's lawyers argued that NASA did not have the right to claim to have been affected by the repeat presidential outcome

President Uhuru Kenyatta is a happy man after his wish to lock out National Super Alliance (NASA) leaders Raila Odinga and his running mate Kalonzo Musyoka from the petitions presented to the Supreme Court challenging his re-election on October 26.

Chief Justice David Maraga ruled that NASA could not be sustained in the petition filed by activist Khelef Khalifa and Mr Njonjo Mue seeking to invalidate Uhuru's victory could.

President Uhuru Kenyatta, through his lawyers, Fred Ngatia and Melissa Ng’ania argued that NASA did not have the right to claim to have been affected by the repeat presidential outcome. Here is a breakdown of what they argued;

1. Lawyer Fred Ngatia asked the court not to entertain NASA since the boycotted from the October 26 election. He also argued that NASA should have filed their own petition to challenge President Uhuru’s win instead of hiding behind two petitioners.

“What is the role of the fourth respondent? You see, NASA boycotted the election. The case filed by NASA is a new petition and new people who have no opportunity to rely are implicated,” he said.

2. Both President Uhuru’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court expunge the six volumes of documents claiming that they were filed on November 7 instead of November 6.

 

“In the memos, we see that they are internal documents and there is no evidence that the petitioners requested the secretary of the second respondent to avail them, “said lawyer Melissa.

 

Lawyer Ngatia argued that the petitioners did not explain why the documents were filed late and said that there are legal ways of obtaining documents.

 

“The constitution allows complete sets of petition to be filed. Numerically they ought to be eight. Two is way below and very poor,” argued lawyer Ngatia.

 

“There is a legal way of obtaining documents. There is no market for obtaining evidence. It will be a license for litigants to obtain documents illegally and placing them in court. We cannot assume that they are authentic as IEBC has not said they emanated from it,” he continued.

3. Lawyer Ngatia argued that it would not be fair if NASA participated in the petition since they had raised new issues challenging the conduct of the election which he had not responded to.

 

“We have difficulty in allowing them to participate in the case. They have filed a politically-charged response implicating many other Kenyans who cannot come to court to defend themselves. There is no way we can respond to the issues they are raising,” he argued.

 

4. The same lawyer also argued that NASA and the petitioners, Mr Mue and Mr Khalifa, are one and the same.

“They are one and the same; we cannot have a party flip-flopping themselves as petitioners while having another party as respondents. It makes it difficult for us; we cannot answer to the petitioners and at the same time answer to claims raised by NASA in their response, “lawyer Ngatia argued.

This is a citizen journalism website. The views expressed here do not represent that of the Standard Group Ltd. Read the terms and conditions
COMMENTS
Related Stories
More From This Author
Popular Stories
Top Contibutors
Peninah  Ronoh

Peninah Ronoh

Wambui   Mbuthia

Wambui Mbuthia

Fay  Ngina

Fay Ngina

Robert  Tano

Robert Tano

Joseph  Sosi

Joseph Sosi

Charles  Bazenga

Charles Bazenga