NAIROBI, Kenya, May 9 – The Supreme Court has barred the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission from conducting the Garissa gubernatorial election until an appeal by Nathif Jama is determined.
Justice Philip Tunoi and Njoki Ndungu further held that there should be no execution of the Court of Appeal judgment that declared the election of Jama null and void.
In a ruling issued on Friday afternoon, the judges said the appellant has raised weighty and constitutional issues stemming from the appellate court’s decision which must be heard and determined.
The court has now directed that parties appear before the Registrar on May 12 to confirm compliance of the orders issued.
The Court of Appeal nullified the election of Jama as Governor on April 23. READ Nathif Jama ousted as Garissa Governor
Appellate Judges David Maraga, John Mwera and Philomena Muli sitting in Nairobi had ruled that the High Court made an error when it failed to order a scrutiny of the votes cast in last year’s election.
However on Friday, the Supreme Court heard that the Court of Appeal exceeded its jurisdiction by addressing itself to issues which were not raised by two voters who challenged the election of the Governor.
Voters Abdi Mohammed and Abdikadir Hassan had filed the petition arguing that the election was marred with malpractices in violation of the Constitution and electoral laws.
The petitioners had complained that the Garissa County Returning Officer failed to give a good reason why voters at the said polling centre were not allowed to vote after 10.30pm but decided to extend the voting exercise the following day.
The ousted Governor was declared winner after he garnered 37,910 votes ahead of his closest rival Ali Bunow Korane who got 35,098 votes.
The petitioners had urged the appellate court to nullify the election alleging there were breaches of the Constitution and election regulations.
The embattled Governor through his lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi argued that the judgment of the court of appeal has loopholes.
He said that his client ought to remain in office and discharge his duties until the highest court in land makes its decision on the appeal which has been triggered by the appeal court.