We’ll do it again, CJ Maraga warns IEBC, politicians
Chief Justice David Maraga remains defiant in the face of sustained criticism the Supreme Court has received since it annulled the outcome of the August 8 presidential election.
Justice Maraga said the court’s consistency and fidelity to the Constitution is a non-wavering commitment and that it will not hesitate to annul another presidential election result in future, if the anomalies remain the same, irrespective of who the aspirants are.
“For as long as the constitution has the provisions granting this Court the mandate to overturn a presidential election in appropriate circumstances, it will do so because the people of Kenya in the preamble to the Constitution adopted, enacted and gave unto themselves the Constitution for themselves and future generations,” he said.
ANNULLING PRESIDENT’S WIN
In its 4-2 majority judgment, the Supreme Court overturned the outcome of the presidential election results, effectively annulling President Kenyatta’s win and ordered for a fresh poll within 60 days.
However, the decision was not taken lightly by President Kenyatta and members of his Jubilee party who have questioned the legality of the four judges overturning the will of 45 million Kenyans.
President Kenyatta dismissed the judges as crooks and promised to review the ruling if he reelected.
“I think those robes they wear make them think that they are cleverer than the rest of us,” President Kenyatta said, taking specific aim at CJ Maraga.
“Maraga thinks he can overturn the will of the people. We shall show you … that the will of the people cannot be overturned by a few people.”
But reading the majority judgement, Justice Maraga said the under Article 1 (3) (c) of the constitution Supreme Court is one of those to whom sovereign power has been delegated.
“All of this court’s powers, including that of invalidating a presidential election is not selfgiven nor forcefully taken, but is donated by the people of Kenya,” he said.
He noted that it would be a violation of constitutional principles if the court dishonestly exercised that delegated power, noting that it would be a dereliction of duty if the court refused to accept the invitation to do so however popular the invitation may seem.