Supreme Court put busybodies, ghosts firmly in their place

Chief Justice David Maraga reads a summary judgement at the Supreme Court on November 20, 2017 regarding the presidential election petition. The Court upheld Uhuru Kenyatta's victory. PHOTO | JEFF ANGOTE | NATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • The petitioners wanted to argue against or alongside an incumbent president who has been declared winner in the election.
  • Article 140 (1) of the Constitution allows a person to file a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the declaration of the president-elect.

Busybodies have been plaguing the Supreme Court with petitions whose pleadings do not amount to a hill of beans even when they have been told they are not welcome.

A bunch of hillbilly hicks from the sticks of Kisumu, Nakuru and Kayole enveloped in the odorous stench of farm fresh chlorophyll and urban poverty, have been crying for justice over the elections.

Yet, they would not recognise justice if she bit them in the backside.

COURT FEES
Judges at the Supreme Court know that their time and other resources are gravely strained and must be deployed in essential causes to serve the Kenyan people.

Causes that contradict the public interest, and which make little or no contribution to settling the election dispute must be rejected as happened last week.

Laughably, Mr George Bush and Mr John Chengo — former Moi University student leaders — had paraded their poverty before the Supreme Court claiming to be paupers in an attempt to dodge paying the Sh1 million required as security costs; the Sh500,000 for lodging a petition; and Sh50 for every page of written submissions or annexures filed.

POLLING STATIONS
Even when someone can raise Sh20,000 to respond to a petition; Sh2,750 to give notice of a motion; or Sh4,000 to file notice of intention to oppose a motion, that person must be serious.

Mr Ben Wamaya, who is registered to vote at Carwash Polling Station in Kisumu, came with a tall tale about wishing to cast his ballot in the October 26, 2017 fresh presidential election but found there were no election staff or materials, and police were repelling people from the polling station.

Another Do-It-Yourself petitioner, Mr Stephen Owoko Oganga, sought to be enjoined in one of the cases just because he registered as a voter in Biashara Ward, Nakuru East Constituency, while Mr Edward Kings Onyancha Maina also wanted to decide the petition because he was registered and voted in Nakuru.

PETITION
All the applicants refused to demonstrate that they were any different from the 19.6 million hoi polloi registered to vote and would be hurt if the Supreme Court decided the cases without regard to their feelings.

These people created tonnes of excuses about lacking money to photocopy documents when a government agency like the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission was paying top dollar for the best lawyers, and hiring out hotels for weeks to prepare to speak original English with a sprinkling of Latin before the judges.

They wanted to argue against or alongside an incumbent president who has been declared winner in the election, and could buy them and sell them at a loss.

A Supreme Court petition is no pauper’s game.

CONSTITUTION
For those who were able to pay the Sh1.5 million and photocopy 16 sets of documents running into 500 pages each, the court only had a slight doubt about whether or not they were really persons.

Article 140 (1) of the Constitution allows a person to file a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the declaration of the president-elect.

Someone who returns a driving licence because he paid a Sh600 bribe for it 28 years earlier, informs the Director of Public Prosecutions about it, and then goes for a fresh test as Mr Njonjo Mue did on July 2015 cannot be a real person.

Mr Mue is a ghost, and might, therefore, not have locus standi to come before the Supreme Court.

Since he only inhabits the imagination, the grievances in his petition — from claims that not everyone had a chance to vote; the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission was divided and ineffective; that the law was not followed in the October 26 presidential election, the court cannot decide on the merits of vapour. Case dismissed.

The writer is a Programme Advisor, Journalists for Justice. The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect those of JFJ. [email protected]