Petitioners led by Paul Muite accuse Parliament and President Ruto’s administration of contempt of court over the gazettement of IEBC commissioners, defying existing court orders. The Milimani Court case challenges the legality of the appointments and a controversial MoU underpinning the process
Petitioners challenging the recent appointment of Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) officials have accused the National Assembly and executive of defying court orders and undermining the rule of law. The matter was brought before the Milimani Law Courts on Monday, where prominent lawyer Paul Muite led the legal challenge.
At the heart of the petition is the gazettement of IEBC commissioners by President William Ruto on June 10, despite existing conservatory orders from the High Court, issued on May 19, which barred the National Assembly from vetting or approving the appointees. The petitioners argue that the appointments went ahead unlawfully and in open contempt of the judiciary.
“It is our submission that the National Assembly—whose Speaker is Moses Wetang’ula, who happens to be my personal friend—has acted in contempt,” said Muite, in court. “This court has already found that he cannot serve as both the Speaker and the Chairman of Ford-K.”
Muite emphasized that the Speaker’s role in facilitating the legislative process made him central to what the petitioners are calling a calculated defiance of court directives. He further criticized what he termed as a creeping culture of undermining judicial authority.
Court Orders Ignored
The appointments, including that of Erastus Ethekon as IEBC Chairperson, were part of a process initiated through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the ruling coalition and the opposition, aimed at ending political tensions and reforming key constitutional commissions. However, Muite questioned the legal grounding of the MoU, asserting that it violated Article 3(2) of the Kenyan Constitution.
“Every person must uphold and respect this Constitution,” Muite quoted, arguing that any attempt to create or operate government structures outside the constitutionally prescribed channels was inherently unlawful and illegitimate.
The court heard that some of the commissioners appointed under this process do not meet the constitutional threshold of integrity and eligibility to serve on the IEBC. The petitioners are demanding a full judicial review of the appointments.
In response to the urgency raised by state counsels, who argued that the IEBC must be constituted urgently in preparation for the 2027 general elections, Muite countered:
“I agree elections are important, but let us look at the bigger evil. If the Constitution is breached for expediency today, what precedent do we set for tomorrow?”
Court Withholds Ruling
The judge presiding over the case acknowledged the complexity and constitutional significance of the matter but said the court would not issue a ruling at this stage.
“We do appreciate these are important issues, but we are not making a determination now,” the judge said, noting that the ruling would be delivered in due course.
Despite the court’s conservatory orders, the executive moved swiftly to complete the IEBC appointments, citing the need to prepare for upcoming boundary reviews, continuous voter registration, and general electoral reform.
Legal experts warn that if the judiciary is sidelined in such critical constitutional processes, it could create a dangerous precedent and erode the checks and balances between the arms of government.
Meanwhile, civil society organizations and opposition leaders have also joined calls for restraint and respect for court orders, urging both Parliament and the executive to halt any further action on the matter until the court delivers a final ruling.
The standoff is likely to escalate unless the court makes a definitive pronouncement on the legality of the appointments and the implications of ignoring interim judicial orders.
