When a presidential candidate is charged with grave crimes

On Friday 15 February 2013, the High Court of Kenya finally made a ruling on the suitability of the Jubilee Alliance presidential candidate, Uhuru Kenyatta, to contest the March 4 elections.

In its verdict, the panel of five judges pointed out that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to deal with questions of qualification or disqualification of persons nominated to run for president. It ruled, instead, that only the Supreme Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. This ruling paves the way for Kenyatta, a current Deputy Prime Minister, and his running mate, William Ruto, a former cabinet minister, to run for president and deputy president respectively.

Praised by some as a correct legal decision, and an appropriate one given Kenya's current political context and sensitivities, the ruling has also animated diverse opinion with some arguing that the High Court should not have heard and dismissed the case if it was outside its jurisdiction. Others have observed that the decision watered down the leadership and integrity standards as required in chapter six of Kenya's new Constitution. It is not yet clear whether or not the matter will be elevated to the Supreme Court.

Editor's Comment
Women unite for progress

It underscores the indispensable role women play in our society, particularly in building strong households and nurturing families. The recognition of women as the bedrock of our communities is not just a sentiment; it's a call to action for all women to stand together and support each other in their endeavours.The society's aim to instil essential principles and knowledge for national development is crucial. By providing a platform for...

Have a Story? Send Us a tip
arrow up