High Court refers transgender case to Chief Justice to constitute three-judge bench
What you need to know:
- He said a three-judge bench may make a resounding preposition that may change perceptions and the way things are done in the country in the future.
- The petitioners have claimed that if the Bill is drafted and passed in the National Assembly as it is, the gender rule may be implemented discriminatorily.
- They want amendments made in the allocation of elective and appointed positions so as to properly effect the gender rule.
A case in which transgender people are seeking inclusion in the implementation of the one-third gender rule in Parliament has been referred to Chief Justice Willie Mutunga.
The CJ is expected to constitute a three-judge bench to weigh the petition.
While referring the case to the CJ, High Court Judge George Odunga said the petition raises "weighty" issues of law and although it may be determined by a single judge, “it must be appreciated that a superior number of judges” was best placed to handle the matter.
He said the nature of the case departs from the routine determinations handled in court on a daily basis and that the outcome may affect the entire spectre of the Kenyan society.
WARRANTS REFERRAL
The judge said that due to the seriousness that the petitioners — Audrey Mbugua, a self-described transgender person, and Mr Solomon Gichira — attach to the petition, it warrants a referral to the Chief Justice to hear and determine the issues.
He said a three-judge bench may make a resounding preposition that may change perceptions and the way things are done in the country in the future.
The petitioners have claimed that if the Bill is drafted and passed in the National Assembly as it is, the gender rule may be implemented discriminatorily.
Lawyer Stephen Gachie, representing Mr Gichira, who is not a transgender person but says he was moved by their plight, said in the petition that transgender people are protected by the Constitution as a vulnerable group and cannot be ignored in parliamentary debates and should be given equal slots as those reserved for the disabled.
The petitioners claim that the gender rule aims at protecting men, women and the disabled only and discriminates against “the third gender”.
The petitioners also argue that because all the 47 counties have women representatives, this has created the misconstrued perception that only women compete with men for elective posts.
They want amendments made in the allocation of elective and appointed positions so as to properly effect the gender rule.
