Former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko has filed a case at the East African Court of Justice to protest Friday’s decision by the Supreme Court of Kenya to uphold his impeachment by the Senate.
In his application, Sonko told the court that the judgment made by the Supreme Court on his removal from office back in 2020 seeks to curtail his political rights to contest in the Kenyan General Elections slated for 9th August 2022.
“THAT it is therefore in the interest of justice that the Honourable Court intervenes at this juncture to arrest the illegality by granting the Applicant appropriate relief at this juncture and subsequently after hearing the parties in the Reference,” Sonko said in his application
In their ruling Friday, Supreme Court judges maintained that Sonko’s impeachment was in compliance with the constitution and the law.
“It bears mentioning in conclusion that Chapter Six of the constitution was not enacted in vain or for cosmetic reasons. The authority assigned to a state officer is a public trust to be exercised in a manner that demonstrates respect for the people; brings honour to the nation and dignity to the office; and promotes public confidence in the integrity of the office. It vests in the state officer the responsibility to serve the people, rather than the power to rule them,” the judges said
Sonko, however, insists that the decision is ‘tainted in illegality’ even as he alleged that the ruling was influenced through corrupt means. He told the court that the Presiding Judge who rendered the said decision at the High Court is currently facing a disciplinary Tribunal over his removal as a result of “receiving bribes and influencing the decision that resulted to his impeachment.
He has also accused Chief Justice Martha Koome, the Presiding Judge of the Supreme Court of Kenya, of previously indicating publicly that he is not eligible to vie and contest for public office.
“The foregoing is directly contrary to the Bangalore Principle of impartiality and the Supreme Court ultimately rendered a pre-determined decision which is contrary to the rule of natural justice and the Applicant’s fundamental rights and freedoms to a fair hearing and trial,” he
“THAT there is eminent danger that should the Honourable Court herein not intervene at this stage, the instant Reference will be rendered a mere academic exercise and the Applicant stands to suffer irreparable harm and damage,” he pleaded while urging the court to intervene