Wetang’ula ought to resign to pave way for elections-Aukot
Wetang'ula has responded by dismissing the High Court's ruling on his dual role
National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetang’ula appears to be affected by the High Court decision rendered on Friday more than any of his United Democratic Alliance (UDA) colleagues even as constitutional experts urge him to resign.
Wetang’ula who is Ford Kenya party leader had rejected attempts to merge his Ford-Kenya party with UDA – a move that would have given him leverage to hang on as far as the court ruling is concerned.
As the Speaker of the National Assembly, he also rendered a decision that made UDA a majority party in Parliament, despite being a minority. These two issues make him a man on the spotlight.
Although Wetangula through his legal advisor, Benson Milimo, said the court did not order Wetang’ula to relinquish either of the two offices – speaker and leader of Ford-Kenya.
“I want to assure the nation and the Ford Kenya fraternity that there is absolutely no cause for alarm. What the court did was make comments — what the law terms as ‘obiter dictum’—which are non-binding and have no consequential effect,” Milimo said Friday.
He further emphasized that at no point did the court rule that Wetang’ula should vacate his position as Speaker of the National Assembly or cease being the Party Leader of Ford Kenya party.
However, Wetang’ula has responded by dismissing the High Court’s ruling on his dual role as the Speaker and Ford Kenya party leader, saying the decision as mere “ordinary comments” in law that are non-binding and have no practical effect.
However, constitutional lawyer, Ekuru Aukot, said he concurs with the High Court findings on Wetang’ula as the Speaker and Ford Kenya leader in total. Aukot said Wetang’ula made a wrong decision by designing UDA as the majority party.
Aukot said the High Court had in the Maina Kiai decision ruled that election results from the polling station are final and the Independent Electoral and Boundary Commission (IEBC) can only verify them.
“Wetangula made a blunder by making UDA majority Party in the National Assembly, yet he is aware that electoral issues are decided in finality at the polling stations,” Aukot said.
He said Wetang’ula as a lawyer would have used the Maina Kiai Case as the basis to decide – because no persons who were elected by the people under Azimio la Umoja could change their mind in support of UDA without going back to the same people to ask for permission.
He said Wetang’ula and Kimani Ichung’wa must resign immediately to pave the way for elections.
Political analyst George Okoth said although things seem to have cooled down because of what has happened since the time, the ruling has significant implications for the leadership structure in Parliament.
He said the ruling raises questions about the legitimacy of decisions made under Kenya Kwanza’s assumed majority status as well as whether Wetang’ula can hold two offices at the same time as required by Public Officer Ethics Act.
Okoth noted that there is no way Wetang’ula can remain neutral as required by law if he has a political party and maintains public confidence in Parliament.
“It is a violation of the Constitution as it erodes the trust the public has in the legislative process,” Okoth said.
