Former Chief Justice Willy Mutunga Opens Up on Supreme Court's 2013, 2017 Rulings

Following Supreme Court's verdict that annulled President Uhuru Kenyatta's August 8th election victory, former Chief Justice Willy Mutunga has come out to comment on the ruling's of the apex court in 2013 and 2017.

In an article published in the Siasa section of Saturday's Weekend Star, the former CJ launched attacks on Kenya's political factions who have been blaming the Supreme Court in both 2013 and 2017 instead of focusing on building the nation.

"We have had two presidential elections in 2013 and 2017 with petitions filed challenging the victors in the two respective elections. The elite factions have used Mahakama ya Juu (the Supreme Court) as their political punching bag. Justice, according to factions, is only done when the apex court decides in their favour," Mutunga writes.

"Since someone has to lose, the losing party does not spare the court and in turn, aggravates the already shaky public confidence for the apex court."

Mutunga describes President Uhuru Kenyatta and Jubilee's attacks on the Apex Court and its judges as a "betrayal by the executive arm of the state that ought to promote and protect their decisional independence and the independence of the judiciary as a whole."

"Competition for political power has become an industry for the elite. Within the national strategic plans and visions lurk personal plans and visions of the elite on how profits will be made, resources raided, wasted, pillaged and grabbed, so billions are generated so they can buy the next election," he writes.

The former CJ further says he was not only aggrieved by 'Chief InJustice' nicknaame given to him by Raila Odinga's supporters but also by the standing ovation accorded to him during President Uhuru's swearing-in at Kasarani in April 2013. "There was no need for any applause as we in the Supreme Court were just doing our jobs," he says.

Mutunga further argues that it would not be difficult to have transparent elections if parties engage in dialogue. "If they wanted free, fair, peaceful, credible, and acceptable elections what stops them from sitting down to agree on how to monitor the IEBC? They could have installed cameras at polling stations or hire an independent body to oversee the electoral process," he says. "Each faction can monitor the operations of IEBC without micro-managing it or dividing the staff and the commissioners," he argues.