Hearing of complaints from disgruntled aspirants starts
A section of counsel members at the Milimani Law Courts on June 11, 2022.
The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) has started hearing at least 160 disputes filed by dissatisfied aspirants who were not cleared.
The process, which began yesterday, will continue for the next 10 days at the Milimani Law Courts, with every aspirant to be given a chance to argue their case. After hearing the complaints, the Dispute Resolution Committee will make determinations within two weeks, paving the way for the IEBC to prepare ballot papers.
“Some individuals may want to go to court but come the end of this month, we shall be proceeding to prepare the ballot papers.”
Jimi Wanjigi of the Safina Party, Ekuru Aukot of the Thirdway Alliance and independent aspirants James Kamau and Reuben Kigame were among those barred from the presidential contest. The four have lodged their complaints with the committee seeking a reversal of the commission’s decision to bar them.
Mr Wanjigi is challenging the decision by the IEBC to reject his nomination for lack of a university degree, arguing he completed his course last December and was to graduate last month but his graduation was moved to November, hence that should not be used to deny him a chance to vie.
The businessman, who is also accusing the IEBC of discrimination after it failed to give him more time to get the required signatures, wants the committee to direct IEBC to clear him.
“I duly completed my course in December 2021. I was subsequently issued with a letter of completion by Daystar University and was scheduled to graduate in May 2022, [an event] the university has pushed to November 2022,” he said.
Mr Wanjigi argues that the commission set precedence in 2013 when it cleared Mombasa Governor Hassan Joho after he only produced a copy of his clearance letter from the Dean of the School of Business Management Studies at Kampala University.
However, his application for nomination as a presidential candidate was rejected on the grounds that he failed to produce a copy of his degree certificate despite presenting his transcripts and completion letter.
Justice Isaac Lenaola (now a Supreme Court judge) agreed with Mr Joho’s submission that a degree does not connote a physical possession of a certificate but refers to certification, which is intangible.
Mr Joho argued that a graduation ceremony and a degree certificate are a mere formality, which confirms that one has qualified for a particular degree. Justice Lenaola agreed, saying a graduation ceremony cannot be used as a measure to determine whether one has a degree or not.
“In my view, what matters is that a person has attended school, undertaken the studies envisaged and has passed all the requisite exams for the conferment of the degree,” the judge said.
Consequently, he said Mr Joho satisfied the qualifications envisaged by Section 22(2) of the Elections Act.
“I am, therefore, in agreement with Mr Joho that a degree is not a physical connotation but is a process whose pinnacle is the graduation,” he ruled.
Mr Wanjigi attached academic transcripts instead of a copy of his degree certificate. His running mate, Mr Willis Otieno, said: “After successful completion of coursework, one is deemed to be a graduate and, therefore, meets the requirements specified in Section 22(1) of the Elections Act 2011.”
