Muslims for Human Rights has accused three appellate judges of being unfit to hold office and called for their dismissal.
The human rights group said appeal judges Erastus Githinji, Martha Koome and Fatuma Sichale quashed a ruling by Judge George Odunga on October 25, 2017, without holding any sitting.
Speaking at the NGO's office on Monday, Muhuri chair Khelef Khalifa said through actions of the three, Kenya now has an invalid and illegal presidency.
The group also accused the Judicial Service Commission of covering up for misdeeds of the three.
“The independence of the Judiciary is being questioned by the fact that the conduct of justices Githinji, Koome and Sichale is not being investigated,” Khalifa said.
Muhuri argues that the three judges were serving in different parts of the country and could not have possibly sat together to make a ruling quashing another ruling, barely four hours after it was made.
Judge Odunga had ruled in the rights group's favour after they had challenged the appointment of 290 constituency returning officers and their deputies on October 19, 2017.
By then the repeat presidential election was seven days away after the Supreme Court had ordered a repeat poll, after nullifying President Uhuru Kenyatta's win on August 8.
The initial ruling had the effect of stopping the repeat presidential election.
However, with the quashing of the Odunga’s ruling, the repeat polls were conducted.
By then Githinji was serving in Kisumu, Koome in Malindi and Sichale in Nyeri.
On April 19, last year, Muhuri, through advocate Evans Oruenjo, complained to the JSC over the conduct of the three.
“The day these judges issued the orders had been gazetted as a public holiday. There was no functioning registry and staff,” Khalifa said.
He said the appeal against Odunga’s ruling was never certified as urgent as required by law. He also said the ruling by the three was done without both parties being present, despite the fact that the matter was inter-partes.
“Our lawyers only got to know about the quashing of Odunga’s ruling through social media,” Khalifa said.
The human rights defender said their request for CCTV footage of the three sitting for the ruling and the three judges’ drivers’ logbook and trip sheets were denied by the JSC.
“Surprisingly, the JSC put up a full-blown defence of the judges and dismissed our complaint. In a delayed and carefully worded response, JSC only tackled the CCTV part, saying the Supreme Court where the judges allegedly sat, is not equipped with the cameras,” Khalifa said.
Muhuri said if indeed the judges heard the appeal, they did not do it in open court, thus acting unethically and violating judges’ obligation of impartial conduct.
“Court of Appeal cases which were allowed by the Chief Justice to continue on October 25, 2017, did not proceed on that day,” Khalifa said.
The rights group now wants the JSC to re-evaluate their complaints and address pertinent issues raised.
“We shall move to court should the JSC fail to act,” Khalifa said.
