, NAIROBI, Kenya, Apr 29 – Chief Justice Willy Mutunga has denied allegations that he was bribed during the petitions that challenged the election of President Uhuru Kenyatta.
In a statement, Mutunga described the allegations as most hurtful and pointed out that he would be the first to order the arrest of anyone offering him a bribe.
“For me the most hurtful allegation was that I had been bribed in the Presidential Petition. I did not know where to turn. I have never been offered a bribe in my life. I have no doubt in my mind that anybody who dares offer me a bribe, regardless of status, would be the first one I arrest under the Constitution and the laws of this land,” he stated.
He challenged those attacking the Judiciary to petition for their removal from office by the Judicial Service Commission.
“If you have any evidence of our wrong doing the Constitution under its Article 168 allows you to petition the Judicial Service Commission for our removal. And if you do not have such evidence then give us justice, treat us as family, compatriots and fellow human beings,” he said.
The Chief Justice pointed out that the Judiciary; especially the Supreme Court has recently been under attack by Kenyans in what he termed as ‘slander, libel, and outright indecent, vulgar, and unacceptable abuses’.
He said such attacks were unwarranted and hurtful to members of the Judiciary and their families.
“We are human beings and we hurt, too. We have families that are hurting because of these attacks,” he stated.
Former Prime Minister Raila Odinga had moved to the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the announcement made on March 9 by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) declaring Uhuru Kenyatta as the winner of the presidential election.
Odinga, together with civil society movement AFRICOG cited several anomalies in the voting process.
The six-judge Supreme Court however unanimously dismissed the petition saying that Kenyatta and his Deputy William Ruto were validly elected and that the polls were free and fair.
It was however after the judges released the voluminous ruling that criticism began flowing, with some legal experts terming it shallow with numerous unanswered questions.