Attorney-General directed to advise on impeached officials’ eligibility in elections

Attorney-General directed to advise on impeached officials’ eligibility in elections

Listen to article

3 min listen
Audio reading is not supported on this browser.
Ready

Thanks for listening. Continue with a related story, or tap the speaker icon on the next page to listen.

Related story

Supreme Court announces recess from August 1 to September 15, 2026

Rachael Mutabasi  ·  1 week ago
Read next Opens a fresh page.

In a ruling delivered on July 17, a five-judge bench comprising Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu and Justices Smokin Wanjala, Isaac Lenaola, William Ouko and Mohamed Warsame held that the Attorney-General should advise on the issue within 21 days before the court proceeds with the reference.

The Supreme Court has deferred hearing a constitutional reference that could determine whether impeached State and public officers can contest elections while court cases challenging their removal are still pending, directing Attorney-General Dorcas Oduor to first issue a legal opinion on the matter.
In a ruling delivered on July 17, a five-judge bench comprising Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu and Justices Smokin Wanjala, Isaac Lenaola, William Ouko and Mohamed Warsame held that the Attorney-General should advise on the issue within 21 days before the court proceeds with the reference.
The advisory opinion was sought by Meru County Assembly Speaker Ayub Bundi Solomon, who wants the apex court to clarify the interpretation of Chapter Six of the Constitution on leadership and integrity, particularly whether an impeached State officer remains eligible to seek elective office while pursuing appeals or judicial review against their removal.
The application argues that, in practice, court challenges against impeachment or removal have been understood to suspend the effect of those decisions, allowing affected leaders to vie for elective office even as litigation continues. The Speaker is seeking guidance on how Articles 99 and 193 of the Constitution, which govern qualifications and disqualifications for elective office, should be interpreted in such circumstances.
During pre-trial directions, the applicant acknowledged that he had deliberately not sought the Attorney-General's advice before moving to the Supreme Court, contending that previous decisions had established that obtaining such advice was not mandatory.
However, the judges rejected that argument, noting that while seeking the Attorney-General's opinion is not an absolute legal requirement, Supreme Court precedent requires government institutions to first seek the Attorney-General's advice before invoking the court's advisory jurisdiction. They found the applicant's reliance on the Martha Karua advisory opinion case misplaced because, in that instance, the Attorney-General's office itself was the applicant and could not reasonably be expected to advise itself.
The bench said the Attorney-General's advice could potentially resolve the dispute without consuming judicial time and added that nothing in Kenya's devolved system prevents the Attorney-General from advising county governments on matters of significant public interest.
The court directed the applicant to serve the reference and the ruling on the Attorney-General, who must file the advisory opinion within 21 days, after which the matter will be mentioned before the Deputy Registrar for further directions. No order on costs was made.

Comments

0
Loading comments...

Trending

Latest Stories

Popular Stories This Week