, NAIROBI, Kenya July 18 – The High Court has directed President Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto to engage the services of a private lawyer to represent them in a case seeking to remove them from office.
Justice Issac Lenaola who made the ruling on Friday said the two cannot be represented by Attorney General Githu Muigai because they are sued in their private capacities, and not as president or deputy.
The suit seeking to remove them from office was lodged by political activist Isaac Aluochier.
Aluochier had objected the AGs representation of the two leaders because he sued them in their “personal capacities”.
The political activist successfully convinced the court that the AG can only join the suit as an amicus curie.
Justice Lenaola noted that since the two are not in government, they cannot be represented by the G because the actions complained of involve their past as officials of their respective political parties and Ministers in Government.
“I do not see how those actions can be termed actions of the national government to attract representation in court by the Attorney General,’’ the judge noted in his ruling.
He has directed Aluochier to personally serve the President and his deputy with a mention notice to enable them appoint private legal counsels to represent them in the proceedings.
Aluochier wants the Head of State and Deputy President to cease from holding the top jobs in the country, saying they are in the office illegally.
He argues that prior to becoming President, between August 27,2010 and April 2012, President Kenyatta was KANU Chairman and continued to hold the position of an appointed Deputy Prime Minister of Kenya right until he assumed office as President.
He also says that prior to becoming Deputy President between August 27 2010 and August 2011, Ruto was both the Deputy Party Leader, Strategy of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) an appointed Minister for Higher Education, Science and Technology.
Citing Article 77(2) of the Constitution, the petitioner contends that the provision prohibits an appointed State officer from holding office in a political party.
He argues that the two leaders had contravened Article 77(2) of the Constitution by holding both the offices of appointed Ministers in the Cabinet, and political party offices.