- A businessperson alleged that three judges showed partiality in a case contesting the appointment of Deputy President Kithure Kindiki.
- Joseph Aura claims his petition was unjustly separated from other matters concerning Rigathi Gachagua's impeachment and Kindiki's ascent to power.
- The court has scheduled December 2 as the day to decide on his petition for the judges to recuse themselves.
A journalist from MountainTravel.co.ke, Harry Ivan Mboto, has more than three years of expertise in covering politics and contemporary issues in Kenya.
A fresh development has arisen in the legal dispute concerning Deputy President Kithure Kindiki's nomination.
Businessman Joseph Enock Aura alleged that a three-judge panel showed prejudice and favoritism, requesting their recusal from considering his case.
Aura, via his attorney Harrison Kinyanjui, submitted a request on October 1 for the removal of Justices Winfrida Mugambi, Eric Ogola, and Anthony Mrima from the case.
He claimed that his petition, which challenges both the impeachment of former deputy president Rigathi Gachagua and Kindiki's appointment, was unjustly divided from other comparable petitions.
"After your order that separated this specific petition, the petitioner believes this Court is unable to address and examine the issues in question fairly and impartially," Kinyanjui stated to the court.
He claimed that the choice to isolate the case breached Aura's constitutional right to equal treatment and a fair trial.
What did Koome state regarding the case that contested Kindiki's appointment?
The entrepreneur had previously requested Chief Justice Martha Koome to increase the panel to five judges, referencing the "unique and significant public interest matters" presented in his application.
Koome instructed that the request be evaluated alongside other related cases. Nevertheless, the three-judge panel refused to involve additional parties, a decision that Aura argues demonstrates "clear bias."
Kinyanjui rejected assertions that the request aimed to postpone the process.
"It is incorrect to claim that this request was made as a delaying strategy. The motion for recusal is more important than other ongoing matters," he stated, noting that his client simply sought justice.
Aura's petition also contests Kindiki's selection as deputy president, claiming the appointment was unconstitutional since it occurred while Kindiki was still holding the position of Interior Cabinet Secretary and prior to the completion of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC).
"Such an appointment is invalid from the beginning," Aura states in his documents.
In his supporting affidavit, Aura cautioned that handling the matter independently from other petitions might result in conflicting rulings.
"The chance of oppressive bias, and bias that may lead the public to reasonably question the fairness of justice in this isolated Petition, is evident," he stated.
The Solicitor General, via Emanuel Bita, requested additional time to reply to the application representing Kindiki.
The bench has now instructed the parties to submit their arguments within specific deadlines. Aura will be granted 14 days, followed by another 14 days for the respondents to respond.
Justice Ogola, addressing the court, emphasized the critical nature of the issue.
"We are facing critical matters. Therefore, we will issue a decision on December 2, 2025, based on the documents already submitted," he stated.
Posting Komentar