logo
ADVERTISEMENT

BBI Appeal Court must be objective

The Court of Appeal must strive to remain objective when ruling whether the BBI Bill was constitutional or not - despite the passionate arguments on either side.

image
by star editor

Coast02 June 2021 - 15:05
ADVERTISEMENT

In Summary


• The Building Bridges Bill introduced constitutional amendments including the creation of a Prime Minister
• In May, the High Court ruled that it was unconstitutional because it was the creation of the executive and not a popular initiative

Building Bridges Initiative lawyers James Orengo, Paul Mwangi and interested party lawyer Charles Kanjama during the mention of the BBI at the Court of Appeal on June 2, 2021.

In May a five-judge bench of the High Court ruled that the BBI Bill was unconstitutional because it was not a truly popular initiative to amend the Constitution.

Now the Court of Appeal will hear an appeal by President Kenyatta, the Attorney General and Raila Odinga in late June.

BBI supporters strongly believe that it will bring a new era of stability by introducing the posts of Prime Minister, Deputies, and a Leader of the Opposition plus channelling more money to the counties and creating more MPs.

Opponents believe that it is a charade to strengthen the executive presidency and will not benefit Wanjiku in any way.

The Court of Appeal should not take a political position. It should adjudicate the appeal purely on the legal arguments of whether the BBI Bill was constitutional or not.

Nor should the court be swayed by politicians - some saying that the High Court judgment was a blessing from God, some saying that it undermined the sovereignty of the people.

The judiciary balances the executive and legislature. Let the court demonstrate its independence by considering the legal arguments alone and ruling without fear or favour.

Quote of the day: "Preventing a war is tantamount to winning a war."

Raúl Castro
The Cuban commander and president was born on June 3, 1931

ADVERTISEMENT