IEBC chairperson nominee Erastus Edung has come out strongly in defence of his nomination, dismissing allegations of political bias, illegality, and lack of inclusivity in the process that led to his selection.
Appearing through his lawyer on Monday, Counsel Issa Mansur, the nominee, told the three-judge bench consisting of Justices Roselyne Aburili, John Chigiti, and Bahati Mwamuye that the petition challenging his appointment lacks both factual and legal grounding.
At the heart of the challenge is the claim that Erastus, who previously served as a county attorney in Turkana, and his alleged affiliations with the deputy chief of staff in the State House.
Petitioners argue that these alleged affiliations compromise his independence and render him too politically aligned to credibly lead the electoral commission.
But Erastus’s legal team rejected the assertions, stating that no provision of the Constitution bars such service.
"In Turkana, he served as county attorney. It's created as a statute. They serve the counties and not the governors. The petition alleges he served under the governor. What is unconstitutional if he served as county attorney?" he told the court.
He added that no allegations of impropriety or breach of constitutional duty were ever raised against Erastus during his public service.
“What role does the deputy chief of staff play in appointing an IEBC chairperson? None,” Issa stated, arguing that perceptions alone cannot be used as legal grounds for disqualification.
Erastus also distanced himself from the process used by the selection panel, arguing that he was merely a nominee who applied, was interviewed, and selected through a legally established structure.
The lawyer argued that the burden to prove constitutional violations, including the alleged failure to meet disability and regional balance thresholds, lies with the petitioners.
“The petitioners have not produced any evidence to show that the 5% threshold for persons with disabilities was ignored,” Issa submitted.
The defence maintained that all legal processes were followed from the advertisement and shortlisting to interviews and final nominations.
According to Issa, the Constitution grants discretion to the selection panel in choosing who to forward to the President, who then makes appointments within his mandate.
On the issue of bias, Issa told the court that there were no personal complaints or legal claims ever filed against Erastus in his past roles.
“If serving as county attorney is enough to be disqualified, then no professional in public service would ever qualify for independent commissions,” he said.
The court also heard that Erastus’s nomination was based on merit and that the petitioners failed to show how he, specifically, violated any part of the Constitution or electoral laws.
“This petition is driven by assumptions, not facts. There is no illegality or impropriety tied to Erastus,” Issa submitted.
The defence now wants the petition struck out, arguing that
entertaining it would amount to punishing public servants for having previously
held statutory positions.
