No excuse justifies failure to comply with tender laws
From left: Judges George Odunga, Joel Njagi and John Mativo at the High Court in Nairobi on July 7, 2017. PHOTO | JEFF ANGOTE | NATION MEDIA GROUP
What you need to know:
The court made the significant finding that the manner in which the independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission managed the tender award failed the test in depriving the public of their right to participate in such an important national undertaking.
It ordered the agency to start tendering for the printing of the ballots for the presidential election afresh and ensure the polls are held on August 8.
The lesson from this is that there is no price too high to pay, no task too difficult to surmount and no excuse good enough to justify failure to comply with the imperatives of constitutionalism.
On Friday, courts made two important decisions that have a bearing on human rights and the presidential election. The first one was on a petition by a presidential candidate who sought orders to block televised debates involving the supposed leading contenders of the presidential poll: the incumbent President and the challenger from the National Super Alliance. The court held that the decision to limit the debate to a select number of candidates was not of itself discriminatory of the other contenders. On this basis, the court held that the organisers of the debates could continue with them using the format they had declared. This was a welcome relief not only for the organisers of the debate, but also for the rest of Kenyans who had been eagerly awaiting the debate between the President and the Nasa challenger.
DELIVERED VERDICT
The decision of more significance came later, when three judges of the High Court delivered their verdict on a case filed by Nasa against the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission. Nasa was challenging the awarding of a tender for printing of ballots to a Dubai-based company. Nasa’s complaint was that the company was linked to some individuals in Kenya and that the awarding was, therefore, tainted. The alliance also argued that the awarding had been made without compliance with the laws on tenders and specifically that there had been no public participation in the method used in determining the winner of the contract.
CLAIMS UNTRUE
The IEBC’s response to the complaint was that the claims by Nasa were untrue and that if the courts were to intervene by stopping the tender, the election schedule would be irreparably affected and it would virtually be impossible to hold the polls scheduled for August 8.
The court made the significant finding that the manner in which the IEBC managed the awarding of the tender failed the test in depriving the public of their right to participate in such an important national undertaking.
It ordered the IEBC to start tendering for the printing of the ballots for the presidential election afresh and ensure the polls are held on August 8. The lesson from this is that there is no price too high to pay, no task too difficult to surmount and no excuse good enough to justify failure to comply with the imperatives of constitutionalism.
