The Supreme Court has struck out a case filed by businessman Jimi Wanjigi against the electoral commission’s decision to disqualify him from the 2022 presidential election for lack of a university degree certificate and insufficient signatures from voters supporting his bid, which thwarted his dream of becoming Kenya’s fifth president.
The apex court said Mr Wanjigi’s case did not raise issues for interpretation and application of the Constitution, noting that the constitutional issues he raised had been considered and determined by the High Court and Court of Appeal that previously dismissed his petitions.
The five-judge bench led by Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu held that the Supreme Court is not an open forum for all cases from the appellate court on judicial review matters and that each appeal is to be considered on its merits on a case-to-case basis.
“The gravamen of the dispute in our view had nothing to do with the interpretation or application of the constitution but rather a factual exercise by the superior courts below (High Court and Court of Appeal) to evaluate Mr Wanjigi’s compliance. None of the provisions of statute are by themselves under challenge,” said the judges.
The other judges on the bench were Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u, Isaac Lenaola and William Ouko.
Failed attempts
Mr Wanjigi, who was the Safina Party presidential aspirant, moved to the Supreme Court after the High Court and Court of Appeal dismissed his case against the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission’s (IEBC) former chairperson Wafula Chebukati.
During clearance of the presidential candidates, Mr Wanjigi presented his nomination papers before Mr Chebukati. Among the documents he submitted were a letter from Daystar University indicating that he was pursuing a degree of Bachelor of Arts in International Relations and Security Management and had completed his coursework.
He also presented copies of his transcripts, a letter from the Commission for University Education confirming that Daystar University was accredited and its degree is recognized in Kenya.
In addition, Mr Wanjigi presented lists of voters from 24 counties who had nominated him for his presidential bid.
After examining the documents, Mr Chebukati ruled that the businessman was unqualified to be nominated to contest in the presidential election and rejected his candidature based on various reasons such as lack of a university degree as required by Section 22 (2) of the Elections Act.
Mr Chebukati also cited lack of nomination by at least 2,000 voters each from at least 24 Counties as required by Section 23 (1) (d) of the Elections Act and lack of a nomination certificate by Safina Political Party for Mr Wanjigi’s running mate, Willis Otieno.
Attempts to reverse the IEBC’s decision failed in succession from the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Disputes Committee, the High Court and Court of Appeal.
‘Invitation we must decline’
His appeal to the Supreme Court was on grounds that the High Court and Court of Appeal had misapprehended the Constitution. He explained that his case involved the enforcement of his political rights as enshrined in the Constitution.
He wanted the Supreme Court to find that he met the minimum requirements for clearance and registration as a presidential candidate.
IEBC and Mr Chebukati opposed the appeal and raised an objection questioning the authority of the top court in dealing with the case.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that its jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution is only on issues involving the interpretation or application of the Constitution.
“Although the appellant cites several provisions of the Constitution, he has not set out, to any extent and to our satisfaction, the manner in which the superior courts (High Court and Court of Appeal) interpreted and applied the Constitution one way or the other,” said the five-judge bench.
“The appellant seems to be inviting us to reprise the evidence and be persuaded as to make a conclusion that resonates with his. This is an invitation that we must decline,” they said.
They stated that it is not granted that whenever the Court of Appeal mentions a provision of the Constitution in its decision, the case automatically invokes the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.
A mention of the Constitution by the Court of Appeal when making a determination will not always clothe the case with constitutional issues. BY DAILY NATION