High Court halts vetting of Ruto's seven IEBC picks by Parliament

The High Court has issued conservatory orders blocking the National Assembly from vetting and approving President William Ruto’s nominees to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC).

Justice Lawrence Mugambi barred Parliament from proceeding with the vetting of the seven nominees, including chairperson nominee Erastus Edung Ethekon, until May 29, 2025, when he is expected to deliver a substantive ruling on the matter.

“Court does issue conservatory orders staying and/or suspending the consideration and vetting of Erastus Edung Ethekon; Anne Njeri Nderitu; Moses Alutalala Mukhwana; Mary Karen Sorobit; Hassan Noor Hassan; Francis Odhiambo Aduol; Fahima Arafat Abdallah for the positions of Chairperson and Commissioners of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission by the National Assembly,” Justice Mugambi ruled yesterday.

The orders followed a petition filed by two voters, Kelvin Omondi and Boniface Mwangi, who asked the court to halt the vetting of the seven IEBC nominees, citing procedural irregularities and violations of constitutional and legal requirements by the selection panel.

Through lawyers Paul Muite and Ochieng Odinga, the petitioners argued that the selection process lacked transparency, public participation and violated several provisions of the Constitution.

• .

  Keep Reading

• 
  Campaign mood grips Nyanza as candidates angle for by-elections
• 
  Senators protest exclusion from IEBC appointment process
• 
  Captured Justice: Kenya's risky slide into legalised repression as politics undermines the Judiciary
• 
  Petition against Ruto's IEBC nominees to be heard tomorrow

“The nomination process was marred by irregularities, lacked transparency and violated key constitutional provisions, including those guaranteeing merit-based appointments, regional and ethnic balance, and inclusion of persons with disabilities,” said lawyers Muite and Odinga.

Muite specifically questioned the inclusion of Hassan Noor in the final list of nominees, stating that his name had not been part of the initial shortlist or the list of applicants advertised to the public.

“We are raising the issue of the fifth Commissioner, Hassan Noor, who was not shortlisted in the initial process. He was not in the advertising list made by the selection panel,” Muite stated.

“He was not advertised or shortlisted. His name was sneaked in. What message does this send to the voters?” he posed.

Muite urged the court to issue interim orders, arguing that allowing Parliament to proceed with the vetting would render the petition moot.

“We seek interim orders to stop the vetting, which is scheduled to kick off on May 26 as announced by the National Assembly, pending the main hearing of the case,” he said.

“At this moment in time in the history of our country, Kenya, there has to be full confidence in the process of getting new Commissioners of the electoral body, my Lord. No one wants a repeat of what we went through in the 2007 and 2008 general elections. We don’t wish the justice system here again to undermine our people,” Muite told the court.

Lawyer Ochieng Odinga supported Muite’s submissions and rejected arguments by Attorney General Dorcas Oduor that the court lacks jurisdiction to halt the vetting process.

“The court has to stop an illegality,” Odinga said, urging Justice Mugambi to intervene before further constitutional violations take place. But the Attorney General has opposed the issuance of interim orders. Represented by Chief State Counsel Emmanuel Bitta, the AG told the court that the petition is premature and does not meet the constitutional threshold for intervention.

“The petition is non-justiciable on account of having been instituted contrary to the principle of ripeness,” Bitta submitted.

He further argued that the petitioners failed to exhaust alternative remedies, such as raising their concerns before the vetting process began.

“The petitioner has not exhausted the first instance, constitutionally provided remedy before invoking the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court, thereby contravening the doctrine of exhaustion,” the AG’s submission reads.

The AG in her submissions warned that halting the legislative process would amount to judicial overreach and violate the doctrine of separation of powers.