Bid to kick out Tobiko ‘political’
Photo/FILE
Lawyer Paul Muite, for Director of Public Prosecutions Keriako Tobiko, makes his submission before a three-judge bench on October 18, 2011. Mr Muite on Tuesday said Mr Tobiko had satisfied criteria set out in the appointment to his office hence there would be no basis for the court to declare that his employment was unconstitutional.
An attempt to remove Public Prosecutions director Keriako Tobiko from office is politically motivated, a court heard on Tuesday.
Lawyer Paul Muite representing the DPP told a three-judge bench that the petition by the Kenya Youth Parliament is not about constitutional violation but a political game.
He submitted that a question of interpretation of the Constitution can only arise when provisions are ambiguous, adding that those against his appointment harboured personal vendetta.
Mr Muite said Mr Tobiko had satisfied criteria set out in the appointment to his office hence there would be no basis for the court to declare that his employment was unconstitutional.
He was making submissions in an application by the lobby group seeking a declaration that Mr Tobiko’s appointment was in breach of constitutional provisions on leadership and integrity.
The activists want Mr Tobiko barred from carrying out his duties as DPP or drawing salaries entitled to the office holder. (READ: Group says it is not after Tobiko sacking)
The group argued that during Mr Tobiko’s vetting by the Constitution Oversight Implementation Committee, several complaints about his integrity and competence were raised but were ignored.
However, Mr Muite submitted that the petitioners were insincere in their claims, saying, they had raised the same complaints when Mr Tobiko was vetted by the parliamentary oversight committee.
“They had the same allegations before the interviewing panel and the parliamentary oversight committee. Just because their claims did not succeed should not mean that the appointment was unconstitutional,” Mr Muite said.
He added that the only instance the appointment could have been termed unconstitutional was if the DPP was a convicted criminal or if he had not met the criteria set out for his appointment.
He said Mr Tobiko’s integrity was dealt with when his appointment was tabled in Parliament and MPs approved it, and that the court could not reopen a matter that had been closed by the President and Prime Minister.
Mr Muite told the judges that the action of the petitioners is an attempt to impeach the DPP — an act that can only be done through a tribunal.
