A heated legal battle is unfolding over President William Ruto’s appointment of seven individuals to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), as a three-judge bench has officially scheduled a hearing for 23 June to determine the legality of the nominations.
The move follows a petition filed by Kenyan voter Kelvin Omondi and prominent activist Boniface Mwangi, who allege that the nomination process “lacked transparency and may have breached constitutional requirements”.
At the heart of the case is the appointment of seven nominees to the IEBC, including Chairperson Erastus Edung Ethekon, whose swearing-in was halted by a temporary conservatory court order. The petitioners argue the entire process was flawed, citing procedural errors and constitutional violations.
Their demand? A total reset. They are calling for “a fresh nomination process to be conducted in line with the law”.
The case touches on one of the country’s most sensitive institutions—electoral integrity. As Justice Lawrence Mugambi noted, judicial intervention is warranted “where there is a credible threat to the Constitution, even in the absence of demonstrable harm”.
- Parliament approves seven IEBC nominees amid controversy
- IEBC showdown: Judicial restraint meets executive power
The petitioners further claim that the process failed to adhere to the Dialogue Committee’s recommendations, which require consultation with both majority and minority parties—a critical point the court is expected to examine.
Timeline & Legal Moves:
30 May: Chief Justice Martha Koome issues a directive stressing urgency due to the issue’s national significance.
Earlier Ruling: Justice Mugambi allows Parliament to vet the nominees but bars any formal appointments, issuing an order “forbidding the gazettement, taking of oath, or assumption of office”.
14 June: Deadline for petitioners to file written arguments.
19 June: Respondents must submit their responses.
23 June: Full hearing set to determine the fate of the appointments.
With the IEBC playing a central role in elections and national governance, the outcome of this case could set a precedent for future public appointments in Kenya.
As the judges prepare to untangle the legal knots, the petitioners remain steadfast in their stance: “The petitioners have highlighted potential constitutional breaches that demand the court’s attention.”
Whether this challenge will reshape the face of Kenya’s electoral commission remains to be seen.
One thing is clear: all eyes are now on the courts, which are expected to determine, among other things, whether the president failed to consult the majority and minority parties, as required by the Dialogue Committee’s recommendations.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@nairobilawmonthly.com, and to advertise with us, call +254715061658 anytime of the day
