A legal battle is brewing over President William Ruto’s recent nominations to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC). The move, which saw Erastus Edung Ethekon nominated as chairman along with six others for commissioner roles, has sparked a court petition, with challengers claiming the process was both illegal and unconstitutional.
The petition was filed by Kelvin Roy Omondi and activist Boniface Mwangi, who argue that the nominations violate Kenya’s Constitution and fail to meet the required standards for regional balance, ethnic inclusivity, and representation of people with disabilities. Their lawsuit, lodged in Kenya’s High Court, seeks to prevent the National Assembly from proceeding with the vetting process, which could potentially lead to the confirmation of the nominees.
“This list is flawed on many levels,” said Omondi. “It does not reflect the diverse ethnic and regional makeup of our country. There was no consultation with the opposition, and the process itself has been marred by opacity and irregularities.”
The petitioners point to specific provisions in the Constitution, notably Articles 10, 27(1), 232, and 250(3) & (4), which stress the need for a fair and inclusive process. They argue that the nominations fail to align with these principles, including the exclusion of people with disabilities and a lack of representation from key ethnic groups.
The petition also highlights concerns over the integrity of the selection process. According to the court documents, some of the nominated individuals were added to the list without clear explanation or proper scrutiny, with certain candidates allegedly failing to meet the required standards in interviews. The petitioners suggest that these irregularities have undermined the credibility of the process, with accusations that certain names were sneaked in under questionable circumstances.
Further claims suggest that the now-defunct IEBC Selection Panel, responsible for reviewing the nominations, did not provide adequate justification for its decisions. This, the petitioners argue, compromises both the transparency and legitimacy of the process.
While the case is still pending, the petitioners are pushing for conservatory orders to prevent the vetting and swearing-in of the nominees. The court’s ruling could have far-reaching implications for Kenya’s electoral management body and its ability to function impartially in future elections.
As the legal proceedings unfold, all eyes will be on whether the nominations will be allowed to proceed, or whether President Ruto’s selections will be sent back to the drawing board.
