Siaya governor, James Orengo has said that the Supreme Court’s verdict that upheld William Ruto as president-elect was not a judicial judgement.
Orengo said that the court, led by Chief Justice Martha Koome had brought shame to those who fought for the independence of the judiciary in the country.
“Chief Justice Koome you have brought shame to the Judiciary by rendering a judgement that in the eyes of the ordinary people who fought for you to make sure that the judicial system has independence,” Orengo said.
“The person who wrote that judgement has done a great injustice to the rule of law. I respect the court, and I have practiced law for a very long time. A lot of the judges in the Supreme Court are my juniors,” he added.
He cited that the language used by the seven judges to render the judgement as inappropriate and unfortunate as the judgement was politically based and not judicial.
He compared the judicial process to a football match that he said should be governed by rules of the game.
“When reading a judgment, the judges use words that are measured so that even the losers in a court of law feel that justice has been done. Like in a football match, if the referee is fair, the competing sides will congratulate each other and shake hands. That’s how courts are supposed to work,” said Orengo.
Orengo was one of the lawyers who represented Azimio One Kenya alliance leader Raila Odinga who filed a petition to contest Ruto’s win at the August 9 general elections.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition due to lack of evidence and forgery of documents.
Narc Kenya leader and Azimio running mate, Martha Karua said that the journey of getting judgement was not over as she planned to take the decision made by the Supreme Court to the East African Court.
She clearly cited that the case wouldn’t be about who should take the president’s seat but whether the Supreme Court gave a fair judgement.