[Judges Njoki Ndung’i and David Maraga in a past event. She poked holes in the majority ruling. Photo/standard]
Supreme Court of Kenya could set a dictatorial precedent that may erode confidence from among members of public, says dissenting judge Njonki Ndung’u.
For over 10 hours, both minority and majority judges in the presidential petition in which President Uhuru Kenyatta’s victory was annulled gave their insight in their full judgments.
But with majority judges led by David Maraga maintaining that the court will declare subsequent elections null and void should IEBC fail to adhere to the strict legal provisions, Ndung’u said the orders were dictatorial and unjudicial.
“If we get such a petition in subsequent elections and IEBC fails to adhere to the rule of law and constitution, we shall render the entire exercise null and void,” read part of Maraga’s judgment.
But Ndung’u, whose judgment did not bare an answer to the harsh determination of the majority, dismissed the stand as illegal and unconstitutional.
“The majority have said they will annul subsequent elections but I think we are setting a dictatorial precedent. Judicial matters are determined by weight of evidence. We analyze only the matter at hand.”