Chief Justice David Maraga is yet to empanel a bench to hear the cases that have been filed in court challenging the advisory he issued to President Uhuru Kenyatta to dissolve parliament.
Four cases were mentioned before Justice Weldon Korir for directions on Wednesday and the court gave a further mention date to confirm if the bench will be empanelled by then.
The conservatory orders that were issued suspending the implementation of the advisory will remain in force until the mentioned date for further directions.
Among the cases mentioned include the case where two Kenyans Leina Konchellah and Mohsen Munasar sued Maraga over his advisory arguing that it was illegal.
The second case is the National Assembly and Senate vs Maraga.
In the case, they argue that dissolution of parliament as advised by the CJ is not tenable.
Parliament argues that the decision by Maraga is a grave error and a misapprehension of the provisions of the law.
They argue that if Parliament was to be dissolved now then no current Bills generated by the executive from the State or through private member Bills can pass and or be enacted into law.
Parliament further says that the IEBC currently has only 3 Commissioners against the quorum of 5 prescribed under the Act.
“This would mean that, if Parliament is dissolved as per Maraga’s advice, the country cannot conduct lawful elections as it is Parliament that vets the candidates for the appointment to the commission,” they argued.
It is their argument that if dissolved the state of anarchy that would ensue would be unprecedented, as the other arms of government cannot operate constitutionally without funds and the Executive may operate without being held to account.
Attorney-General Kihara Kariuki has also separately filed a case at the court arguing that if parliament is dissolved then that may give the president another term.
Third Way Alliance has equally filed a petition seeking an interpretation of the constitution on the issue of the dissolution of the parliament.
Lawyer Adrian Kamotho has also filed a case challenging the advisory and he argues that the Chief Justice failed to disclose the next course of action or events that should follow upon dissolution of Parliament, thus occasioning profound anxiety to the public.
Kamotho says the intention to dissolve Parliament was never disclosed, published or publicized contrary to the dictates of Article 35 (3) of the Constitution.
The cases will be mentioned on October 21 for further directions.