The Meru High Court has declined to stop a tribunal from investigating the conduct of Juliana Cherera, Francis Wanderi, Irene Masit and Justus Nyang’aya during the August polls.
Justice Edward Muriithi, however, ruled that the petition filed by three Meru residents would stay alive and would scrutinise the tribunal’s findings to check if the rights of the IEBC commissioners had been violated.
The tribunal probing the four electoral officials was formed by President William Ruto after the National Assembly endorsed their removal as IEBC commissioners. It is led by Appellate Judge Aggrey Muchelule and is set to begin proceedings on December 20 despite the resignation of three of the four targeted commissioners.
In his ruling on Wednesday, Justice Muriithi fixed a mention date on January 16, 2023 but told the parties that they could appear before him earlier, depending on the tribunal’s decision.
The judge said that only the constitutional court, in its constitutional adjudication role, is able to quash any verdict of the tribunal due to its supremacy on the matter.
“The two Constitutional processes of inquiry under the parliamentary procedure must respectfully keep their lanes with regard to their respective spheres of the rule of law, the promotion and protection of fundamental human rights and entrenchment of good governance,” he ruled.
“The idea is to allow the tribunal to proceed with its matter and make a determination. Once that determination is made, if any of the parties is still aggrieved, we come for mention on January 16 or earlier depending on what decision is made,” added Justice Muriithi.
Justice Muriithi allowed a preliminary objection to the petition filed by the Attorney-General by declining to issue a conservatory order halting the progress of the tribunal hearing. He, however, ruled that the court had jurisdiction to arbitrate on the matter.
The Attorney-General had argued that the tribunal had one month to complete its mandate.
The petitioners had argued that the four commissioners would suffer injustice at the hands of the tribunal if it was allowed to carry on with its mandate. They also argued that the four were not given a chance to defend themselves before the National Assembly when it heard petitions for their removal.
