Travesty: Mutula Jr faults Gatundu North parliamentary seat ruling - Beaking Kenya News

Beaking Kenya News

Where It All Happens

Breaking Kenya News

Websites Development


Wednesday, 7 October 2020

Travesty: Mutula Jr faults Gatundu North parliamentary seat ruling


Makueni County Senator Mutula Kilonzo JR has weighed in on the ruling by  Justice Weldon Korir to declare the Gatundu North parliamentary seat vacant.

In a ruling on Wednesday, judge Korir said the election by Hon Wanjiku was in violation of the law.

Korir ruled that the IEBC should conduct fresh elections for the position.

Via Twitter, the senator criticised the pronouncement terming it a "travesty".

"This is a travesty. We amended the Election laws to ensure decisions of this nature are made within six months of the elections," Mutula said.

In the case, former MP Clement Kungu Waibara had moved to court challenging Wanjiku's election.

Waibara had filed a constitutional petition claiming that the right to vie for election as an MP is subject to the qualification criteria set out in Article 99 of the Constitution.

Article 99(2)(d) says a person is disqualified from being elected an MP if the person is an MCA.

Through a notice number 6253 of 2017, Wanjiku was gazetted as the duly nominated candidate to contest for MP on a Jubilee Party ticket.

Waibara had further accused IEBC of failing to ensure Wanjiku was duly qualified under the Constitution and the applicable law for election as MP.

The former lawmaker said the IEBC knowingly or negligently failed to discharge its constitutional mandate in verifying Wanjiku’s qualifications, thereby causing a grave violation of the Constitution.

He said the commission, as a result, perpetuated illegality that persists to date in breach of the Constitution and at the expense of the constituents of Gatundu North.   

The Constitution requires sitting MCAs wishing to vie for elections as MPs to resign from office on or before the date of their application for nomination by political parties or upon nomination by their respective parties.

The case had moved up to to the Court of Appeal who directed it to be heard afresh by a constitutional court.

No comments: