The court ruling that stopped BBI is an expression of a silent supremacy battle between the three arms of government, Nyeri Town MP Ngunjiri Wambugu has said.
On Thursday the High Court ruled that the BBI constitutional amendment process was unconstitutional.
Wambugu said the Judiciary has been trying to make itself the supreme arm of government through some of its judgments.
He said through the judgment, the High Court was telling the Executive and the Legislator that they were wrong.
The Executive and Parliament support the BBI process.
The Judiciary, he said, has taken upon itself the responsibility of determining the fate of 47 million Kenyans because they have a grudge with President Uhuru Kenyatta.
The president refused to appoint 41 judges and so they decided to attack him, the MP said.
Speaking to the media in his offices in Nyeri town on Saturday, Wambugu said the courts should know that the BBI was not about the President but Kenyans.
The MP said he was convinced the ruling would be overturned at the Court of Appeal.
The Judiciary could also be having a problem with the BBI because it would be held accountable under the proposed office of ombudsman, he said.
The MP disagreed with the bench that there are clauses in the 2010 Constitution that cannot be amended.
“As long as we follow the process, we can change the Constitution and we can change any part of the Constitution,” he said.
The Constitution can be amended through Parliament or through a popular initiative, he said, adding that anyone who is not in Parliament can initiate the process through a popular initiative.
He wondered how a proposal to change the Constitution can be unconstitutional, saying Kenyans had the right to decide whether to change it or not.
The Judiciary, he said, is working with theories of law without accepting and understanding the spirit of the Constitution.
“The spirit of the Constitution allows us as Kenyans to change this law any time we want as long as we do it according to the law,” he said.
“You cannot say a proposal to change the Constitution is unconstitutional because if this proposal is passed by Kenyans, then it becomes the new Constitution.”
Two of the judges, he said, were extremely upset by the president as they were expecting to be appointed as Appeal Court judges. They were in the list of 41 judges the president refused to appoint.
“Personally, I think what they were doing is running a vendetta. I don’t think they thought that that ruling is going to hold. I believe strongly that they believe that it is going to be overturned,” he said.
Edited by Henry Makori
