Speakers dismiss bid to block Parliament in gender law row
Parliament debates the two-thirds gender rule Bill on November 21, 2018.
What you need to know:
- National Assembly Speaker Justin Muturi also declared that he will not offer any time for a meeting with LSK, arguing that such a meeting is against the rule of law.
The political storm over the two-thirds gender rule comes to a head on Monday as the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) and representatives of the other petitioners plan to barricade Parliament.
In a letter to the two Speakers of the Senate and National Assembly, LSK on behalf of the United Green Movement and Weare52pc, about 20 people will troop to Parliament Buildings tomorrow at 2.30pm “to coordinate with you the modalities of securing Parliament Buildings from entry by parliamentarians, who effective that day, will have ceased exercising delegated legislative power on behalf of the people of Kenya”.
LSK has maintained that Parliament stands dissolved on October 12 by operation of the law whether President Uhuru Kenyatta acts on the recommendation by Chief Justice David Maraga or not.
Yesterday, the two Speakers dismissed the plan and warned Mr Nelson Havi that he would fail in his mission and that his theatrics on the issue would hurt the LSK more than Parliament.
Dismissed plan
“They are believers in miracles,” Senate Speaker Kenneth Lusaka said as he dismissed Havi’s plan.
“First of all, I have not seen any letter from them. Secondly, the matter is in court. Thirdly, sit down to discuss what? It will not happen.”
National Assembly Speaker Justin Muturi also declared that he will not offer any time for a meeting with LSK, arguing that such a meeting is against the rule of law.
“What is he doing in court?” Muturi asked, referring to the petitions in court in which several parties, including the Parliamentary Service Commission, have filed petitions in the High Court challenging Chief Justice Maraga’s advisory.
The Chief Justice transmitted to President Kenyatta on September 21 a recommendation to dissolve Parliament on grounds that it has failed to enact a law to implement the gender balance requirement for Parliament.
This was after he received six petitions LSK, former Marakwet West MP David Sudi, Margaret Toili, Fredrick Mbugua, Bernhard Aoko and Stephen Owoko that alleged that Parliament has deliberately refused to enact the law.
“In the circumstances, let us endure pain, if we must, if only to remind ourselves as a country that choices, and particularly choices on constitutional obligations, have consequences,” the Chief Justice stated in his recommendation to President Kenyatta.
However, the Chief Justice’s advisory has been challenged in court and Justice Weldon Korir on September 24 temporarily suspended the advisory pending the hearing and determination of a petition filed by two citizens, Leina Konchellah and Mohsen Abdul Munasar.
Rule of law
In his ruling suspending the advisory, Justice Korir further ruled that all parties that had petitioned the Chief Justice to advise the President to dissolve of Parliament be party to the proceedings.
“On one hand, Havi is in court and on the other he is shouting all over the streets in total disregard to court proceedings. Can he make up his mind on what we should follow?” Muturi asked, warning the LSK president that his antics risk suffocating the Society.
“The LSK is more respectable than what Havi is projecting. LSK should be on the side of the rule of law and its president should be patient until the due process is over.”
“They are free to come but certainly I will not meet them. Havi must explain whether he has abandoned one of the petitions he has filed in court against Parliament.
Six petitioners
Besides the two, the Parliamentary Service Commission (PSC) and the Attorney General Paul Kihara have separately filed challenges to the advisory.
But LSK President Nelson Havi told Sunday Nation that they were not aware of the court order suspending the implementation of Mr Maraga’s advisory since the six petitioners were not joined in the suits challenging the recommendation.
“The petitioners did not want us in the case. It would have been different if they had joined us,” said Mr Havi. Even though Justice Korir, while giving his orders, appeared to include the petitioners, Mr Havi says it was an overreach since LSK had not been a party in any of the challenges filed in court.
“The court order is a nullity ab initio because, just the same way you cannot sue the president for performing his lawful duties, you cannot also purport to sue the Chief Justice for acting in accordance with the constitution in the execution of his duties,” Mr Havi added.
