Parliament Accused of Contempt Over IEBC Appointments Amid Court Orders

Petitioners have accused the Kenyan Parliament of contempt of court for proceeding with the gazettement of Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and commissioners, despite existing court orders that blocked the process.

During a hearing at the Milimani Law Court, lawyer Paul Muite, representing the petitioners, argued that the National Assembly, led by Speaker Moses Wetang’ula, defied orders from both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. 

Muite asserted that Wetang’ula's actions, as the central figure in the legislative process, directly undermine judicial authority.

Addressing the respondents' argument about the urgency of having a commission in place for the 2027 elections, Muite acknowledged the importance of elections but urged the court to consider the "bigger evil" of constitutional violations.

Muite also challenged the legality of the Memorandum of Understanding between the ruling party and the opposition, which he claimed was the basis for the current nomination process. 

He argued that this MoU violates Article 3(2) of the Constitution, which requires every person to uphold the Constitution and states that any attempt to establish a government contrary to its provisions is unlawful

President William Ruto appointed a new electoral body, chaired by Erastus Ethekon, through a Kenya Gazette notice published on June 10. This occurred despite conservatory orders issued by the High Court on May 19, which had temporarily blocked the vetting and approval of the IEBC appointees pending the determination of a petition filed by two individuals. 

The petitioners contend that the IEBC commissioner selection process was unlawful and that some nominees do not meet the eligibility criteria.

In their defense, the National Assembly and the executive told the court that halting the process would disrupt a constitutionally time-bound exercise and undermine public participation.

The court acknowledged the significance of the issues but stated it was not prepared to issue a ruling immediately, indicating that a decision would be delivered in due course.