The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) has suffered a setback after the High Court denied a motion by the commission’s oversight to prohibit 241 applicants involved in integrity investigations from running in the upcoming General Election.
The three-judge bench, made up of justices David Majanja, Chacha Mwita, and Mugure Thande, also stated that the nine petitions were generic in character and addressed issues without offering specific evidence.
“We hold the view that the petitions are general in nature, raise issues without reference to concrete facts, do not allege any wrongdoing against a specific person and do not have specific respondents against whom such relief may be granted,” said the court.
The Anti-Corruption Commission, activists, and the Director of Public Prosecutions teamed together against the electoral commission, which was portrayed as the weak link in efforts to remove corrupt individuals from the ballot.
They urged the court to rule that applicants with active criminal and corruption charges, impeached public officials, and those with doubtful integrity should be barred from running for office.
Former Nairobi governor Mike Sonko, former Kiambu County government Sports executive Karungo Thang’wa, and Nakuru Town West MP Samuel Arama were among those named in the complaint.
Others were candidates for governor, senator, MP, and ward representative seats that the EACC had recently barred from running due to charges of corruption and economic offenses.
The court, however, said it could not accept the requests because the petitioners had not exhausted the laws available alternative dispute resolution processes.
The litigation was a consolidation of nine petitions seeking direction from the court on the interpretation and application of Chapter Six of the Constitution in reference to aspirants for political seats.
“The petitions merely ask the court to rule on abstract and blatantly intellectual issues. We decline this invitation,” the court stated.
The justices also concluded that the proper forum to protest to the clearance of the corrupt candidates was the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC).
The 34-page decision upheld the IEBC’s authority to authorise or deny aspirant nominations and to resolve pre-election disputes.
The court determined that the petitioners had not exhausted all available alternatives under Article 88(4)(e) of the Constitution and Section 74 of the Elections Act.
“The argument is based on the fact that the people whose behaviour is under scrutiny have put their names forward for nomination by the IEBC, which has a mechanism through its DRC (Dispute Resolution Committee) for settling any disagreements arising from nominations,” the court explained.
Sonko and Thang’wa were prohibited as they were impeached and dismissed from office for egregious misconduct, while Arama’s nomination was challenged due to an ongoing corruption prosecution.
The EACC informed the court that as part of its duty, it sends an integrity verification report to the IEBC to guide its nominations of political aspirants and guarantee that nominated candidates comply with Chapter Six of the Constitution.
According to the EACC, the IEBC is required by the Constitution (Article 259(11) and Sections 4(3) and (4) of the Leadership and Integrity Act) to act in accordance with the integrity verification report and decline to clear candidates who do not meet the constitutional and statutory integrity thresholds.
