Kenya: Now Okoiti Omtatah & Barack Abonyo, petition to delay Referendum
From: Joram Ragem
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INTERIM INDEPENDENT CONSTITUTIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION COURT AT NAIROBI (K.I.C.C.) IN THE MATTER OF: ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF SECTIONS 1, 1A, 3, 41A, 47A & 60A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA REVIEW ACT (NO. 9 OF 2008) [INCLUDING THE ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF SECTIONS 4, 6, 10, 23, 26, 27, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35 & 42 THEREOF INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONERS’ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE INFRINGED]
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY AND PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ACT (CAP 7), THE PUBLIC OFFICER ETHICS ACT (NO. 4 OF 2003) AND THE PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND DISPOSAL ACT (NO. 3 OF 2005) CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. OF 2010
BETWEEN
ANDREW OMTATAH OKOITI – 1ST PETITIONER
MAXIMILIA MUNINZWA – 2ND PETITIONER
OUMA ODERA – 3RD PETITIONER
FREDERICK ODHIAMBO AWUOR NYATADO – 4TH PETITIONER
SARAH NYOKABI – 5TH PETITIONER
PROF BARRACK OTIENO ABONYO – 6TH PETITIONER
AND
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL – 1ST RESPONDENT
THE COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS – 2ND RESPONDENT
THE INTERIM INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION – 3RD RESPONDENT
PETITION
TO: The Interim Independent Constitutional Dispute Resolution Court
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF ANDREW OMTATAH OKOITI AND OTHERS
AFOREMENTIONED, ALL OF WHOM ARE ADULT CITIZENS OF KENYA WHOSE
ADDRESS OF SERVICE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PETITION IS CARE OF MUMA
AND KANJAMA ADVOCATES, MAENDELEO HOUSE 3RD FLOOR, MONROVIA
STREET, P.O. BOX 528-00100, NAIROBI IS AS FOLLOWS
1. The 1st to 5th Petitioners are adult Kenyan citizens and registered voters carrying out various businesses in Nairobi, while the 6th Petitioner is an adult Kenyan citizen residing and working for gain in Florida, United States of America. Their address of service for the purposes of this Petition is care of Muma & Kanjama Advocates, Maendeleo House 3rd floor, Monrovia Street, P.O. Box 528-00100, NAIROBI.
2. The First Respondent, the Attorney General, has been sued in this Petition as the Legal Representative of the Government of Kenya. His address of service for the purposes of this Petition is care of The Attorney General’s Chambers, Sheria House, Harambee Avenue, NAIROBI.
3. The Second Respondent, the Committee of Experts, is a statutory body established under section 8 of the Constitution of Kenya Review Act (No. 9 of 2008) and charged with the conduct of the constitution review process. Its address of service for the purposes of this Petition is Delta House, Chiromo Road, Westlands, P.O. Box 8703-00200, NAIROBI.
4. The Third Respondent, the Interim Independent Electoral Commission, is a corporate body charged with the conduct of elections and referenda in Kenya and established under section 41 of the Constitution of Kenya. Its address of service for the purposes of this Petition is Anniversary Towers 5th Floor, Monrovia Street, P.O. Box 45371-00100, NAIROBI.
Specific Issues
5. The Petitioners state that under section 47A of the Constitution of Kenya, the sovereign right to replace the Constitution with a new Constitution vests collectively in the people of Kenya and shall be exercisable by the people of Kenya inter alia through a referendum in accordance with this section. This constituent power is exercisable in accordance with the Constitution and the Constitution of Kenya Review Act (No. 9 of 2008) insofar as and to the extent that the said Act is consistent with the Constitution.
6. The Petitioners further state that under sections 47A and 60A of the Constitution of Kenya, the sovereign right to replace the Constitution inter alia through a referendum shall be exercisable under the direction of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission and shall be subject to the supervision and exclusive original jurisdiction of the Interim Independent Constitutional Dispute Resolution Court. These powers are exercisable in accordance with the Constitution and the Constitution of Kenya Review Act (No. 9 of 2008), the National Assembly and Presidential Elections Act (Cap 7), and subject to the Public Officer Ethics Act (No. 4 of 2003) and the Public Procurement and Disposal Act (No. 3 of 2005), insofar as and to the extent that the said Acts are consistent with the Constitution.
7. The Petitioners state that their rights to participate in replacing the Constitution have been violated by the actions of various state officers and public bodies, including the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, and other officers of Government for whom the 1st Respondent is legally answerable for.
8. The Petitioners also state that their rights to effectively participate in replacing the Constitution have been violated by the Constitution of Kenya Review Act, No 9 of 2008 (hereafter “the Review Act”) to the extent that it is inconsistent with section 47A of the Constitution of Kenya, and will request for declarations upholding the Constitution against the inconsistent provisions in the said Act.
9. The Petitioners state that their aforesaid rights have been violated in particular with regard to:
a. The failure of the Committee of Experts as constituted to adequately reflect the competencies required by law, to adequately engage the public and collect their views in identifying, articulating and resolving the contentious issues, and to impartially and fully comply with the requirements of the Review Act.
b. The systematic failure of the Committee of Experts to comply with the constitutional and statutory provisions required to ensure that the sovereign right of the Petitioners and other Kenyans to participate collectively in the replacement of the Constitution was respected to the fullest extent permissible and allowable in law.
c. The failure of the Committee of Experts and/or the Interim Independent Electoral Commission to allow the Petitioners their unfettered right to participate collectively in the review of the Constitution by failing to design a referendum in a manner that would help to resolve the contentious issues either via a multiple-choice referendum 3
on contentious issues or a vote on an addendum of contentious issues that can automatically amend the Proposed Constitution at the referendum.
d. The failure of the Committee of Experts to facilitate impartial and lawful civic education without showing preference for either the Yes or the No side, including their failure to facilitate adequate and impartial civic education on each of the three aspects of the review process namely: (i) the Current Constitution, (ii) the Review Process and Act, and (iii) the Proposed Constitution, and including deliberate participation in conducting partisan civic education.
e. The failure of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission to allow adult Kenyan citizens in the diaspora the facilities and right to register for voting in the referendum, and to cast their votes in the referendum scheduled to replace the Constitution.
f. The failure of the Attorney General, the Committee of Experts and the Interim Independent Electoral Commission to ensure a fair, balanced and level electoral playing field during the referendum period, including by allowing the use of state resources, functions and/or officers in partisan civic education and political campaign for the proposed Constitution.
Specific Points of Law
10. The 2nd Respondent (hereafter “the CoE”) was required to comply with the terms of the Review Act and the Constitution of Kenya in order to ensure that the sovereign right of the Petitioners and other Kenyans to participate collectively in the replacement of the Constitution was respected to the fullest extent permissible and allowable in law. In particular:
a. Under section 4(f) and (g) of the Review Act, the CoE was required to secure provisions in the Constitution ensuring the full participation of people in the management of public affairs and committing Kenyans to peaceful resolution of national issues through dialogue and consensus. This has not been done adequately, including the failure to consult members of marginalised communities like the Marakwet, the Teso, the Kuria and the Mbeere prior to designing structures of devolution that would conjoin them into large counties with dominant communities.
b. Under section 6(a), (b), (d) and (e) of the Review Act, the CoE was required to uphold national interest, be accountable to the people of Kenya, allow Kenyans an opportunity to actively, freely and meaningfully participate in generating and debating review proposals and to ensure that the outcome of the review process faithfully reflects the wishes of the people of Kenya. These guiding principles were systematically violated. Among others:
i. The CoE did not have the mandate to reject the doctrine of legislation with representation in respect to treaties as provided for in all the drafts that preceded the Proposed Constitution of Kenya (namely articles 115(2)(g), 124(g), 119(c) and 88(c) respectively of the 2005 Proposed Constitution of Kenya, the Harmonized Draft Constitution, the Revised Harmonized Draft Constitution and the Parliamentary Select Committee Draft). This provision was omitted from the Proposed Constitution of Kenya. Taken together with articles 2(5),(6) introduced without any possible mandate by the CoE, the referendum seeks to urge Kenyans to ratify a document that will remove their power to have Parliamentary involvement before ratification and/or domestication of international law. This is beyond the powers of the CoE so to do.
ii. The CoE violated the objects of the Review Act when it removed the requirement for transparency and parliamentary authorisation of government loans that was provided for in article 253(2) of the Harmonised Draft.
c. Under section 10 of the Review Act, the CoE was required to reflect expertise in various areas of law, public finance, anthropology and consensus building. However, the make-up of the CoE, as evidenced from the curriculum vitae of the nominated experts, discloses key competencies omitted from the Experts qualification including
4
public finance and administration, anthropology and mediation and consensus building.
d. Under section 23(b), (c), (f), (g) and (i) of the Review Act, the CoE was required to identify contentious issues in the existing draft Constitutions, solicit and receive from the public presentations on the contentious issues, articulate the respective merits and demerits of the proposed options for resolving contentious issues, make recommendations to the Parliamentary Select Committee on these options and facilitate (but not conduct) civic education. The CoE failed to properly comply with each of these functions. Among other things, the CoE failed to identify several substantial contentious issues (like the question of constitutional establishment of kadhis’ courts, and the structures of devolution), failed to articulate merits and demerits of the proposed options via a report, and purported to directly conduct civic education on its preferred choice to the exclusion of other options.
e. Under section 26 of the Review Act, the CoE was required to keep a verbatim record of the proceedings of each of its meetings and to disseminate adequate information to the public regarding its activities (including such proceedings). The CoE failed to keep and publicise the verbatim report indicated herein and conducted its activities and operations in an opaque and undemocratic manner without reflecting the views and wishes of majority of Kenyans.
f. Under section 27 of the Review Act, the CoE was required to facilitate and promote civic education, but not to directly engage in civic education of contentious issues since this would interfere with their attribute of impartiality (sections 19, 20 of the Review Act). Instead:
i. the CoE directly engaged in civic education all tailored to highlight positive aspects of the proposed constitution and not to highlight the negative aspects aforesaid, and all intended to result in the adoption of the proposed constitution, hence improperly and in a partisan manner influencing civic education.
ii. the CoE failed to comply with the requirements of the Public Procurement and Disposal Act (No. 3 of 2005), in particular the requirements for open tendering and avoidance of conflicts of interest, without any justification known to law for the use of alternative procurement procedures. Hence the funds provided for civic education have been allocated to third parties without any open or proper procurement procedure, and without consideration of the requirement for political neutrality and impartiality.
g. Under section 30(1,2) of the Review Act, the CoE was required to identify the issues that were contentious and not agreed upon and to identify these contentious issues as outstanding in its harmonised draft Constitution. This was not properly done.
h. Under section 33(1) of the Review Act, the CoE was required to revise the draft Constitution taking into account the achieved consensus of the Parliamentary Select Committee. Instead the CoE assumed onto itself an extra authority to substantially alter the provisions consensually agreed by the Parliamentary Select Committee, as well as to introduce completely new changes to the draft Constitution that were not in contention. These include the treatment of article 26(4) of the final CoE draft, as well as article 2(5), (6).
i. Under section 35 of the Review Act, the CoE was required to facilitate civic education on the Proposed Constitution for a period of thirty days, and to involve non-State actors in the delivery of civic education. Instead of facilitation, the CoE has actually conducted partisan civic education, and has continued to do so even beyond the mandatory 30-day period.
j. Under section 42 of the Review Act, the CoE was required to abide by the Code of Conduct applicable to elections under the National Assembly and Presidential Elections Act. The CoE was also required to abide by the relevant Code of Conduct in the Public Officer Ethics Act and the rules in the Public Procurement and Disposal Act. The CoE has failed to abide by these terms by engaging in partisan political
5
campaign and slanted civic education for the approval of the draft, using slogans such as “Katiba ni SASA; kama sio SASA, ni SASA HIVI!”, meaning “A new constitution is NOW, if not NOW, then RIGHT NOW!”.
11. The 1st Respondent (hereafter “the A.G.”) was required to comply with the provisions of the Review Act, the National Assembly and Presidential Elections Act and the Constitution of Kenya in order to ensure that the sovereign right of the Petitioners and other Kenyans to participate collectively in the replacement of the Constitution was respected to the fullest extent permissible and allowable in law. In particular:
a. Under section 34 of the Review Act, the A.G. was required to publish the draft Constitution within thirty days and not to effect any alteration to the draft Constitution save for editorial purposes. This requirement was violated in fact, and various typographical and editorial errors were introduced and/or retained in the Proposed Constitution of Kenya.
b. Under section 47A(2) of this Constitution, which prevails over the Review Act, no person could make any alteration to the draft Constitution after its introduction into the National Assembly unless by sixty five percent of all members of the National Assembly. Instead, the A.G. purported to rely on the Review Act to introduce “editorial alterations” in clear and contemptuous disregard of the Constitution and of the integrity of the process and document, and of the rights of Kenyans to participate in a referendum in regard to the draft Constitution approved by Parliament.
c. Under section 42 of the Review Act, the A.G. and all state officers were required to abide by the Code of Conduct applicable to elections under the National Assembly and Presidential Elections Act. The A.G. and all public officers were also required to abide by the relevant Code of Conduct in the Public Officer Ethics Act and the rules in the Public Procurement and Disposal Act. Among others they were to maintain political neutrality, not misuse public resources in political campaigning and not use their public position to urge a particular political choice on Kenyans. These legal requirements have been openly violated.
12. The 3rd Respondent (hereafter “the IIEC”) was also required to comply with the provisions of the Review Act, the National Assembly and Presidential Elections Act and the Constitution of Kenya in order to ensure that the sovereign right of the Petitioners and other Kenyans to participate collectively in the replacement of the Constitution was respected to the fullest extent permissible and allowable in law. In particular:
a. Under section 37 of the Review Act, the IIEC was required to frame and publish within seven days the referendum question. This question was to be framed in accordance with the need under section 47A to allow Kenyans a full opportunity to participate in the replacement of the Constitution. They framed a binary question under section 37(2), thus violating the Constitutional right of the Petitioners encapsulated in section 47A of the Constitution which could only be affirmed by a multiple-style question in order to deal with the remaining contentious issues in the proposed constitution, in particular the right to life (article 26), the kadhis’ courts (articles 169, 170), and the other contentious issues of land, devolution, citizenship and bill of rights.
b. Under section 47A(5) of the Constitution, which prevails over the Review Act, the IIEC was required to ensure that all qualified Kenyan citizens are eligible and enabled to register as voters and to participate in the referendum on the replacement of the current Constitution. The IIEC was required to apply section 43 of the Constitution with necessary modifications, taking into account the constituent power of all adult Kenyan citizens and that a referendum is not an electoral contest for constituency representatives. The IIEC failed to comply with the express and implied meaning of these provisions by providing a short registration period of about fifty days for their new electoral register, and not extending registration to Kenyans in the diaspora.
They also failed to provide for the voting of Kenyans in the diaspora in the
6
Constitution of Kenya Review (Referendum) Regulations 2010, which they published by Legal Notice No. 66 of 2010.
13. The 1st Respondent has also been joined as the legal representative of all state officers and organs in the Republic of Kenya. The state organs and officers were required to comply with the provisions of the Constitution of Kenya, the Review Act, the National Assembly and Presidential Elections Act (Cap 7), the Public Officer Ethics Act (No. 4 of 2003) and the Public Procurement and Disposal Act (No. 3 of 2005). They were required not to act in a manner prejudicial to the principles of neutrality, objectivity and accountability. In particular:
a. Under the National Assembly and Presidential Elections Act (hereafter “the Elections Act”), applicable mutatis mutandis to the referendum by virtue of section 47A of this Constitution, and sections 41, 42 of the Review Act –
i. section 17B(1) of the Elections Act applied mutatis mutandis to the referendum requires that no public officer shall engage in political activity or publicly indicate support for or opposition to any side in the referendum. This was grossly violated.
ii. the fourth schedule of the Elections Act, namely the Electoral Code of Conduct, requires in paragraphs 6(h), (i) and (j) that no financial inducements be offered, or position of authority abused or discrimination on basis of political opinions or activity, in respect of any side of the referendum. This was grossly and systematically violated, and continues to be violated by public officers using state resources to campaign for the adoption of the proposed constitution.
b. Under the Public Officer Ethics Act (hereafter “the Ethics Act”), applicable mutatis mutandis to the referendum through section 47A of this Constitution and sections 41, 42 of the Review Act –
i. section 16 of the Ethics Act requires political neutrality of all public officers (excluding Members of Parliament and Councillors when acting as politicians). The public officer is required not to act as an agent of a political party or indicate support or opposition to any political party, nor engage in political activity that may compromise the political neutrality of his office. This has been severally violated by partisans of the proposed constitution.
ii. the Public Service Commission Code of Conduct and Ethics in paragraphs 6 and 8 requires that public officers maintain political neutrality and not to make public comments that support or criticise a political party or that compromise or are seen to compromise the political neutrality of his office. This has been severally violated by partisans of the proposed constitution.
iii. the Code of Conduct and Ethics for Members of the National Assembly in paragraph 17 requires that Members of Parliament should not make improper use of public property or resources. This would include using public resources for partisan political purposes. This provision has been severally violated by supporters of the proposed constitution, and continues to be so violated.
c. Under the Public Procurement and Disposal Act (hereafter “the Procurement Act”), applicable mutatis mutandis to the referendum through section 47A of the Constitution and sections 8, 20, 41, 42 of the Review Act –
i. sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Procurement Act require all procurement by public entities (including the CoE and Government Ministries) to abide by the procurement rules. This was not respected with regard especially to the sourcing and distribution of funds used for civic education.
ii. section 29 requires the procuring entities to use open tendering unless an alternative procedure is allowed under Part VI of the Act. The requirement for open tendering was openly and fragrantly violated by the CoE and the
7
Government Ministries (including the Prime Minister’s office) which sourced for and allocated the funds for civic education.
14. The systematic failure of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents to respect and obey the Constitution of Kenya and statutory provisions (to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the Constitution) has gravely, fundamentally and irreversibly compromised the Petitioners’ ability to participate to the fullest extent authorised by the Constitution in the replacement of this Constitution.
15. There is a constitutional requirement, upheld by the High Court in the seminal case of Njoya & others v Attorney-General & others [2004] 1 E.A. 194, and in the subsequent cases of Patrick Ouma Onyango & others v The Attorney-General & others H.C. Misc Appl 677 of 2005 (O.S) and Rev Jesse Kamau & others v The Hon Attorney General & others Misc Civ Appl 890 of 2004 (2010 eKLR) for the people to be wholly involved in the constituent power of enacting a new constitution through (i) popular consultation; (ii)
fully consultative, inclusive and democratic framing of proposals; and (iii) a free and fair national referendum. This constitutional requirement, whose touchstone of validity is the people of Kenya (namely all Kenyan citizens qualified to vote), is contained within section 47A(2)(a) of this Constitution. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, in the design and implementation of the Review Act, have consistently violated and continue to violate this constitutional requirement, hence infringing on the Petitioners’ rights.
16. The Petitioners therefore have an unfettered right of access to the Interim Independent Constitutional Dispute Resolution Court for orders seeking declarations upholding their constitutional rights to participate fully in the review process, and seeking orders stopping, postponing and/or varying the manner of performance of the review and referendum process prior to the referendum currently scheduled for August 4th, 2010.
a. Under section 60A of the Constitution, which prevails over the Review Act, this Honourable Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to determine all matters arising from the constitutional review process, including determination of matters dealing with the conduct of the referendum at any time prior to the said referendum.
b. Under section 60A of the Constitution, which prevails over the Review Act and any other law, the Petitioners have a right not to be unduly fettered in their right of access to this Honourable Court by adverse or unjustifiable and excessive orders regarding costs or security for costs.
The Facts Relied Upon
17. The facts relied upon are stated in brief in the paragraphs hereunder.
18. The Constitution of Kenya was amended by Act No. 10 of 2008 by the introduction of a new section 47A dealing with the sovereign right of the people of Kenya to replace this Constitution collectively through a popular referendum. At the same time, a new section 60A was introduced into the Constitution to provide for the establishment of this Interim Independent Constitutional Dispute Resolution Court with exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine all and only matters arising from the constitution review process.
19. Subsequent to this amendment, the Constitution of Kenya Review Act, No. 9 of 2008, came into force on 22nd December 2008. The Review Act is subject to sections 47A and 60A of the Constitution and was enacted to facilitate the completion of the review of the Constitution of Kenya and for connected purposes.
20. By the Review Act, four organs of the review process were identified, namely the CoE, the Parliamentary Select Committee (hereafter “the PSC”), the National Assembly and the Referendum. All four organs were to be governed in the performance of their functions by
8
justiciable duties highlighted in section 6 of the Review Act. The principal obligation would rest on the CoE, which was the principal organ or review.
21. To properly fulfil its mandate, the CoE was required to have a composition that reflects various competencies provided in section 10 of the Review Act. As established however, the CoE lacked various critical competencies necessary for ensuring that the review process did not undermine the sovereign and collective right of the people of Kenya to replace the Constitution of Kenya. Among the competencies either totally omitted or inadequately represented are public finance and administration, anthropology and mediation and consensus building.
22. The CoE after establishment was given twelve months from 22nd December 2008 to complete its mandate (section 28, Review Act). The CoE was required to identify contentious issues in the review process, inter alia by studying the existing draft constitutions, including the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission draft published in 2002 (hereafter “the CKRC draft”), the Draft Constitution of Kenya published by the National Constitutional Conference in March 2004 (hereafter “the Bomas draft”) and the Proposed New Constitution of Kenya published in August 2005 by the Attorney General (hereafter “the Wako draft”). CoE was also required to identify contentious issues by soliciting and receiving written memoranda on contentious issues, by undertaking thematic consultations with caucuses and interest groups, and by carrying out studies, researches and evaluations on the same. The CoE performed these duties inadequately and tendentiously and purported to identify only three contentious issues, namely (i) the Executive and Legislature; (ii) Devolution of power; and (iii) Transitional clauses.
23. The CoE admits to receiving various memoranda identifying contentious issues relating to the following: (i) Kadhis Courts, (ii) Land, (iii) Electoral systems and (iv) Affirmative action. The CoE however chose to introduce an unauthorised third category of issues, called “resolvable differences”, without mandate from the Review Act. The issues aforementioned were then demoted to this category, and then closed off from public contribution and participation after being noted by the CoE.
24. Following the publication of the highly restricted Contentious Issues and invitation to the public to submit views, the CoE received 19,133 views by way of written and oral submission from members of the public, including 5,212 from organised groups categorised as civil society (2,073), political parties (88), private sector (50), religious organisations (2,969) and statutory bodies (32). Among the views received from the CoE were numerous views dealing with other issues that were considered contentious by the public, but which the CoE had chosen and continued to choose to ignore.
25. The CoE then convened a reference group and held three joint meetings with them. Among the issues discussed was the question of Kadhis’ Courts, which was still contentious but which the CoE chose to continue disregarding in its listing of contentious issues.
26. The CoE was then required under section 30 of the Review Act to prepare a harmonised
draft Constitution with the issues that are not contentious identified as agreed and closed
and the issues that are contentious identified as outstanding. The CoE instead chose, in
clear violation of the Review Act, to resolve the contentious issues through internal
discussion within the CoE. It thus failed to identify any issues as contentious and
outstanding when it released its Harmonised Draft Constitution published on 17th
November 2009 (hereafter “the first CoE draft”).
9
27. The CoE then received further views from the public and pursuant to section 32(1)(b) and
(c) prepared a Harmonised Draft Constitution of Kenya published on 8th January 2010
and presented to the PSC (hereafter “the second CoE draft”).
28. The PSC then received the second CoE draft and reached agreement on various identified
contentious issues as required under section 33(1) of the Review Act. The PSC thus
published its consensus draft constitution, called the Revised Harmonised Draft
Constitution, on 29th January 2010 (hereafter “the PSC draft”).
29. The CoE then received the PSC draft and revised it, beyond the mandate provided in
section 33(1) of the Review Act. CoE then published the Proposed Constitution of Kenya
dated 23rd February 2010 (hereafter “the final CoE draft”). Among other ultra vires acts,
the CoE took the opportunity at this late hour and without warrant of previous contention
or any accountable reflection of the wishes of the people of Kenya:
a. To abolish the fundamental principle of legislation with representation in regard to
international treaties. The CoE removed the requirement for Parliament to be
involved in ratification of treaties (namely article 115(2)(g), 124(g), 119(c), 88(c) and
respectively of the Wako draft, the first CoE draft, the second CoE draft and the PSC
draft). At the same time, it introduced article 2(5,6) into the final CoE draft to allow
for direct application of international law in Kenya, without warrant from its previous
drafts nor from the recommendations of the PSC.
b. To reintroduce article 14(4) on the citizenship of foundlings of up to eight years of
age despite the consensual determination of the PSC to eliminate this provision.
c. To explicitly derogate from the right to life of the unborn, provided in article 25 of
the PSC draft, by expanding a right to abortion to cases involving “the opinion of a
trained health professional”, “need for emergency treatment”, “health of the mother”
and “if permitted by any other written law” under article 26(4) of the final CoE draft.
d. To introduce a completely new paragraph in the article on equality (article 27(8) of
the final CoE draft) providing that “the state shall take legislative and other measures
to implement the principle that not more than two thirds of the members of elective or
appointive bodies shall be of the same gender.” This provision, introducing as it does
a substantial limitation to the freedom of association of all persons in Kenya,
including public and private bodies, is an unprecedented invasion of the freedom of
association and of inalienable human rights.
e. To reintroduce several functions for the National Land Commission (article 67 of the
CoE draft) previously eliminated in article 59 of the PSC draft, including the very
contentious issues of initiating investigations on its own initiative or on a complaint,
into present or historical land injustices, and recommend appropriate redress.
f. To reintroduce a constitutional warrant for legislation on land in regard to highly
contentious issues including a duty to prescribe maximum and minimum land holding
acreages in respect of private land and to enable a review of all grants or dispositions
of public land to establish their propriety or legality (article 68 of the final CoE draft).
g. To eliminate suo motu the provision requiring the approval of all nominated judges
by the National Assembly prior to their appointment, and to replace it with a
provision requiring only the Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice to be approved by
the National Assembly.
30. The final CoE draft submitted to the PSC was therefore irredeemably in violation of the
Constitutional and statutory obligations of the CoE, and thus in violation of the
constitutional rights of all adult Kenyans including the Petitioners to participate and be
wholly involved in the constituent power of enacting a new constitution through (i)
popular consultation; (ii) fully consultative, inclusive and democratic framing of
proposals; and (iii) a free and fair national referendum. The Petitioners shall petition this
Honourable Court to make an order compelling the CoE to release the verbatim record of
10
its proceedings maintained under section 26(1) of the Review Act in order to expose the
process through which the PSC draft was amended to produce the final CoE draft.
31. The final CoE draft was subsequently submitted to the National Assembly, which
proposed more than one hundred and fifty substantive amendments to the various
provisions of the final CoE draft. However, none of the amendments was able to muster
the sixty five percent majority of all members of Parliament required under section
47A(2)(b) of the Constitution. The final CoE draft was therefore passed by the National
Assembly without amendment on 1st April 2010 and handed over to the A.G. on 7th April
2010 for publication.
32. Despite the express provision in section 47A(2)(b), the A.G. purported to introduce further
alterations into the approved final CoE draft under the cover of section 34 of the Review
Act, purportedly “for editorial purposes.” The said actions of the A.G, which led to the
introduction and retention of typographical errors into the Proposed Constitution of
Kenya, are unconstitutional, inconsistent with the sovereign right of all Kenyans including
the Petitioners to participate fully in the replacement of the Constitution of Kenya.
33. The A.G. was required to publish the Proposed Constitution of Kenya (hereafter “the
proposed constitution”) within thirty days of receiving the same, namely on or before 7th
May 2010. The Proposed Constitution of Kenya was formally published on 6th May 2010,
although there were two different drafts released by the Government Printer to the public.
One version was later declared to be erroneous by public notice in the newspapers two
weeks after the deadline for formal publication of the proposed constitution, thus
effectively violating statute and infringing on the Petitioners’ rights.
34. After publication of the proposed constitution, the IIEC was required to frame and publish
the question to be determined by the referendum. The question was framed and published
by Legal Notice No. 5075 of 2010 dated 12th May 2010 purportedly in accordance with
section 37 of the Review Act as a binary question requiring the voter to indicate whether
they approve or do not approve the proposed constitution. The Petitioners contend that the
failure of the Review Act to contemplate a multiple-choice style referendum, or a
referendum with an addendum of contentious issues, was a substantial violation of their
constitutional and sovereign right to participate fully in the replacement of the
Constitution of Kenya. In particular:
a. There is no positive requirement in section 47A(4), (5) of the Constitution for the
referendum to be via a single binary question regarding ratification.
b. There is a positive requirement under express constitutional sanction and implied
requirement declared by the High Court sitting as a constitutional court for adult
Kenyan citizens to be given full access to a free and fair referendum where they can
express their choice regarding the proposed constitution. Where the review process
has disenfranchised adult Kenyans, including the Petitioners, by failing to properly
deal with and resolve contentious issues, there is a positive duty to allow all Kenyan
voters including the Petitioners to express their views on those contentious issues
during the national referendum.
35. The CoE was required under section 35 of the Review Act to facilitate civic education on
the proposed constitution for a period of thirty days after its publication (namely from 6th
May 2010 to 5th June 2010). The CoE was not meant to conduct the civic education itself,
since this would interfere with the doctrine of political neutrality, but merely to facilitate
non-State actors in the delivery of civic education. Instead, the CoE severally and gravely
violated this mandatory provision and purported to directly engage in and also facilitate
partisan civic education in violation of the principle of political neutrality. The actions of
the CoE have irremediably titled the electoral playing field in favour of the political choice
of adopting the proposed constitution. In particular:
11
a. The CoE used public resources to publish partisan civic education materials that
merely highlighted what the CoE considered positive gains of the proposed
constitution, that failed to acknowledge the contentious issues or the arguments of the
persons, including the Petitioners, opposed to the proposed constitution. The said
materials include the information on the official website of the CoE (namely
http://www.coekenya.go.ke/), the Proposed Constitution Handbook, the Facilitators
Manual and the Guide to the Proposed Constitution.
b. The CoE failed to facilitate civic education equally on each of the three aspects of the
review process namely (i) the current Constitution, (ii) the Review Act and (iii) the
proposed Constitution. Their consistent and systematic failure to facilitate education
of Kenyans on the current Constitution, including by availing copies of the current
Constitution in English and an approved translation into Kiswahili, have denied the
Petitioners and other Kenyans the possibility of making an informed choice during
the scheduled August 4th 2010 referendum.
c. The CoE obtained public resources contrary to the Procurement Act and deployed the
resources to its own agents and to other organisations without any transparent and
legal process of procurement or the requirement to observe political neutrality in civic
education.
d. The CoE continued to conduct, and deploy resources to organisations conducting,
partisan civic education beyond the mandatory thirty-day period for civic education,
thus further compromising the constitutional duty to observe political neutrality
during the review process.
e. The Petitioners are apprehensive that the continued use of public resources for
partisan purposes and campaigning under the guise of civic education will make it
impossible for Kenyans to obtain balanced information from both political positions
in the referendum and make informed choices in exercise of sovereign collective right
to replace this Constitution.
36. The Petitioners are aware of several purported civic education sessions conducted by the
CoE directly and targeted at various members of the public which were conducted in a
clearly partisan and unconscionable manner in clear violation of the principle of political
neutrality, including among others the official launch of civic education at KICC Tsavo
Ballroom on 11th May 2010, and the official civic education at a presidential function to
local authority councillors on May 14th, 2010.
37. The Petitioners, and in particular the 6th Petitioner, also state that the right of all adult
Kenyan citizens to participate in the review and referendum process was compromised by
the IIEC during the fresh registration of voters and the creation of a new voters register
mandated by section 41A(d) of the Constitution. In particular:
a. Inadequate time, namely about 50 days, was given for registration of voters, hence
compromising the ability of Kenyans in the diaspora to register for voting.
b. Inadequate facilities were provided for registration of voters, without the possibility
of mail-in registration, electronic registration or registration at Kenyan diplomatic
missions abroad, thus gravely violating the constitutional rights of Kenyans in the
diaspora to take part in the constitution review process.
c. Lack of provision in the Referendum Regulations published by the IIEC for Kenyan
citizens in the diaspora to register and vote in the referendum from outside the
country, thus violating their sovereign rights to participate in the constitution review
process.
38. The Petitioners state that their possibility of engaging in a free and fair referendum to
review the Constitution has been gravely and substantially compromised by the repeated
deliberate and unconscionable acts of government and state officers and organs in
violating the doctrine of political neutrality. The 1st Respondent as the legal representative
12
of Government is answerable to the Court for this violation of political neutrality. Among
other illegal, unjustifiable and unconstitutional acts:
a. The Prime Minister severally reiterated in public fora and to the media that the
referendum was a government project, hence implying that the government was
entitled to enter the political ring and engage in partisan support for one side of the
referendum campaign using its resources, public functions and public officers.
b. On 22nd April 2010, the Prime Minister addressed a public function organised using
public resources, the National Cohesion Elders Conference, and urged the country’s
elders to vote for the proposed constitution. The same stance had been taken by the
President in his official address to the same forum on 20th April 2010.
c. The cabinet, which is a supreme organ of the Executive in Kenya charged with
assisting the President in the government of Kenya and the exercise of its executive
authority, passed a resolution on April 27th 2010 stating that under collective
responsibility all ministers should campaign for a Yes vote.
d. The Deputy Prime Ministers and Minister for Local Government stated on May 2nd
2010 in Mumias that the government would go the extra mile to campaign for the
proposed constitution even if it meant using state resources. Indeed the Petitioners
have noted personally and also through the media that government officers including
cabinet ministers have been using state resources including vehicles during political
campaigns for the proposed constitution.
e. On 14th May 2010 the government organised an official function for 4,500 local
authority councillors, under the auspices of the Ministry of Local Government and
using public resources and personnel, to campaign for councillors to support the
proposed constitution during the referendum period. Included among the inducements
was a Kshs.5,000.00 pay increase which was reportedly booed by the councillors.
f. On 19th May 2010 the media reported and editorialised on the government plan to
use public funds to finance the Yes campaign for the proposed constitution. The
government had intimated to the public and the media that it intended to allocate
Kshs.541 million to the Yes secretariat to fund the campaign for the proposed
constitution since it was a public project.
g. On 22nd May 2010, the media reported on the affirmation by the President and the
Prime Minister that the government had ruled out providing any funds to the No side
of the referendum, but that the position regarding the Yes side was different, only
affirming that they had not yet categorically stated they would use public resources.
h. On 28th May 2010, the Minister of Internal Security, his Permanent Secretary and the
Defence Assistant Minster called and addressed a conference of 270 district
commissioners, 18 regional commissioners and 8 provincial commissioners to
marshal their support in conducting partisan civic education.
i. On numerous occasions since the adoption of the proposed constitution by the
National Assembly, government officers including cabinet ministers have spoken at
public functions organised using public resources and made partisan political
speeches in favour of the proposed constitution.
j. On 7th June 2010, the media reported that the Minister of Justice had authorised the
extension of statutorily-mandated 30-day civic education to go on until the
referendum date and even beyond, contrary to statute and the doctrine and
requirements of political neutrality. The government also confirmed that it would
release Kshs.553 million for the exercise in clear contravention of the relevant
statutes.
k. On 21st June 2010, the media reported that the President of Kenya called cabinet
Ministers to State House Nairobi to discuss the Yes campaign, and directed the
Minster of Finance to release any funds required for the constitution review process.
The Nation Newspaper also reported that the President’s adviser on the constitution
wanted the proposed constitution to pass at all costs.
13
39. The Petitioners state that due to the aforesaid acts and events of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd
Respondents, and of state officers for whom the 1st Respondent is legally answerable,
their rights as individuals and collectively with the rest of Kenyans to exercise their
sovereign power to replace the Constitution through consultation, framing of proposals
and referendum has been, is being and continues to be violated.
The Grounds of the Petition & the Arguments therefor
40. THAT the Petitioners are adult Kenyan citizens entitled pursuant to section 47A of the
Constitution to participate individually and collectively with other Kenyans in the
constitution review process in exercise of their constituent power in constitution-making.
a. The sovereign right of all Kenyans to replace this Constitution is enshrined in the
Constitution under section 47A of the Constitution.
b. The sovereign right to replace the Constitution includes a constituent power
exercisable by all adult Kenyan citizens to participate to the fullest extent possible in
the review process through (i) popular consultation; (ii) fully consultative, inclusive
and democratic framing of proposals; and (iii) a free and fair national referendum.
41. THAT the various and several illegal, irregular, biased and/or unconstitutional acts of the
Respondents as here-above indicated (including contravention of the Review Act, the
Elections Act, the Ethics Act and the Procurement Act) have compromised the
constitutional rights of the Petitioners (and of all other adult Kenyans) to participate in the
review process and to fairly cast their votes for or against the proposed constitution on 4th
August 2010.
a. For the proposed constitution to validly come into effect upon ratification by national
referendum, the statutory and constitutional processes undertaken prior to putting the
proposed constitution to the vote must have been done according to law.
b. Violation of the principles of political neutrality, accountability and transparency by
the Respondents have irremediably tilted the electoral playing field for the
referendum and biased and violated the sovereign right of Kenyans to make free and
fair choices during the scheduled referendum on the proposed constitution.
c. Failure to strictly comply with the pre-conditions for holding a valid referendum
means that the proposed constitution is illegitimate, null and void, and hence no
referendum (which is merely the last organ of the review process) can sanction an
illegitimate document.
42. THAT the Petitioners therefore have an unfettered right of access to the Interim
Independent Constitutional Dispute Resolution Court for orders seeking declarations
upholding their constitutional rights to participate fully in the review process.
a. This unfettered right is found under sections 47A and 60A of this Constitution, and
also derives from other constitutional principles and provisions including sections 1,
1A and 3 of this Constitution.
b. The Petitioners are entitled to seek orders and reliefs from this Honourable Court in
exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction and powers over the entire constitutional
review process at any time prior to the irreversible act of repeal of the current
Constitution and replacement with the proposed constitution.
43. THAT the Petitioners are entitled to request this Honourable Court to exercise its
supervisory jurisdiction over each and every organ of the review process, including also
the Respondents herein, and to issue various orders stopping, postponing and/or varying
the manner of performance of the review and referendum process prior to the referendum
currently scheduled for August 4th, 2010.
a. That this Honourable Court should stop or postpone the referendum scheduled for 4th
August 2010 to allow the rectification of the errors in the review and referendum
process.
14
b. That in the alternative, this Honourable Court should apply its supervisory
jurisdiction to issue orders for the manner in which the subsequent review and
referendum process shall be conducted up to and after the referendum.
44. THAT unless this Honourable Court issues the prayers sought and any conservatory orders
to secure the constitutional rights of the Petitioners (and also of other adult Kenyans), the
Petitioners will suffer grave prejudice not otherwise remediable, and the referendum may
be declared null and void to the grave prejudice of the entire nation of Kenya.
45. THAT it is meet and just that this Honourable Court grant the prayers sought.
The Questions & Issues for Determination
46. Whether the Petitioners have locus standi to present and argue this Petition.
47. Whether the Respondents have been properly joined to this Petition.
48. Whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this Petition.
49. Whether the Petitioners, as adult Kenyan citizens and together with other Kenyans, have a
sovereign right to replace this Constitution with a new Constitution, and whether this right
includes the right to be wholly involved in the constituent power of enacting a new
constitution through (i) popular consultation; (ii) fully consultative, inclusive and
democratic framing of proposals; and (iii) a free and fair national referendum.
50. Whether sections 34, 37 and 44 of the Review Act are inconsistent with the Constitution.
51. Whether the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, through their various actions, have violated
and/or compromised the aforesaid sovereign right and constituent power of the Petitioners,
and of all other Kenyans.
52. Whether the Petitioners’ rights to participate fully in the constitution review process have
been, are being or are in imminent danger of being infringed.
53. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to any conservatory orders and/or interim,
intermediate or interlocutory reliefs, including orders postponing or varying the manner in
which the referendum process is being conducted up to the holding of the scheduled
referendum.
54. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to any remedy, and to the remedies and reliefs
particularised here-below.
The Reliefs Sought
REASONS WHEREFORE, YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY:
55. THAT a declaration be issued to declare that the Petitioners and all other adult Kenyans
have a sovereign right to replace this Constitution with a new Constitution, and whether
this right includes the component rights to be wholly involved in the constituent power of
enacting a new constitution through (i) popular consultation; (ii) fully consultative,
inclusive and democratic framing of proposals; and (iii) a free and fair national
referendum.
Further and In Particular,
a. That the CoE did not have the mandate to reject the doctrine of legislation with
representation in respect to treaties as provided for in all the drafts that preceded the
Proposed Constitution of Kenya.
b. That the CoE violated the objects of the Review Act when it removed the requirement
for transparency and parliamentary authorisation of government loans that was
provided for in article 253(2) of the Harmonised Draft.
c. That the CoE violated the provisions of the Review Act by failing to identify several
contentious issues, articulate the respective merits and demerits of the proposed
options for resolving contentious issues, make recommendations to the Parliamentary
Select Committee on these options and facilitate but not conduct civic education.
15
d. That the CoE was required to maintain a verbatim record of the proceedings of each
of its meetings and to disseminate adequate information to the public regarding its
activities, and that therefore the Petitioners are entitled to have unfettered access to
this verbatim records upon payment of a reasonable reproduction charge.
e. That the CoE violated their constitutional and statutory obligation to facilitate and
promote non-partisan civic education, but not to directly engage in civic education of
contentious issues, in disregard of their attribute of impartiality and the doctrine of
political neutrality.
f. That the CoE violated their constitutional and statutory obligation to revise the draft
Constitution taking into account the achieved consensus of the Parliamentary Select
Committee.
g. That hence the final CoE draft is unconstitutional, null and void, and any acts founded
upon it are consequently also null and void.
h. That the CoE violated their statutory obligation to facilitate civic education on the
Proposed Constitution for a period of thirty days, and to involve non-State actors in
the delivery of civic education, without itself participating in partisan campaign.
i. That the CoE violated their constitutional and statutory obligations to observe
political neutrality and transparent and accountable procurement in civic education.
56. THAT a declaration be issued to declare that the Committee of Experts as constituted
failed to adequately reflect the competencies required by the Review Act, to adequately
engage the public and collect their views in identifying, articulating and resolving the
contentious issues, and to impartially and fully comply with the requirements of the
Review Act.
57. THAT a declaration be issued to declare that section 34 of the Review Act is inconsistent
with section 47A of the Constitution, and is therefore null and void to the extent that it
permits the Attorney General to effect any alterations on the constitutional Bill approved
by the National Assembly.
58. THAT a declaration be issued to declare that the Proposed Constitution of Kenya, as
published by the 1st Respondent on 6th May 2010 with purportedly editorial alterations, is
unconstitutional, null and void, and no further constitutional acts can be founded upon it.
59. THAT a declaration be issued to declare that section 37 of the Review Act is inconsistent
with section 47A of the Constitution, and is therefore null and void to the extent that it
restricts the framing of the referendum question to a binary ratification-rejection question
without the possibility of a multiple-style referendum to deal with contentious issues in the
proposed constitution.
60. THAT a declaration be issued to declare that section 44 of the Review Act is inconsistent
with sections 47A and 60A of the Constitution, and is therefore null and void, to the extent
that it may be interpreted to limit the unfettered right of access of the Petitioners to this
Honourable Court to challenge the conduct of the referendum at any time whatsoever prior
to or after the referendum but before the effective date of the proposed constitution.
61. THAT a declaration be issued to declare that the Committee of Experts and/or the Interim
Independent Electoral Commission violated the unfettered rights of the Petitioners and
other Kenyans to participate collectively in the review of the Constitution by failing to
design a referendum in a manner that would help to resolve the contentious issues either
via a multiple-choice referendum on contentious issues or a vote on an addendum of
contentious issues that can automatically amend the Proposed Constitution at the
referendum.
16
62. THAT a declaration be issued to declare that the Committee of Experts violated the rights
of the Petitioners and other Kenyans by failing to facilitate impartial and lawful civic
education without showing preference for either the Yes or the No side.
Further and In Particular:
a. That the Committee of Experts failed to facilitate adequate and impartial civic
education on each of the three aspects of the review process namely: (i) the Current
Constitution, (ii) the Review Process and Act, and (iii) the Proposed Constitution;
b. That the Committee of Experts violated the Petitioners’ constitutional rights by their
deliberate participation in conducting partisan civic education.
63. THAT a declaration be issued to declare that the Interim Independent Electoral
Commission violated the rights of the 6th Petitioner and of other adult Kenyans in the
diaspora by failing to allow adult Kenyan citizens in the diaspora the facilities and right to
register for voting in the referendum, and to cast their votes in the referendum scheduled
to replace the Constitution.
64. THAT a declaration be issued to declare that the failure of the Attorney General, the
Committee of Experts and the Interim Independent Electoral Commission to ensure a fair,
balanced and level electoral playing field during the referendum period, including by
allowing the use of state resources, functions and/or officers in partisan political campaign
for the proposed Constitution, has violated the constitutional rights of the Petitioners as
well as other adult Kenyans.
65. THAT a declaration be issued to declare that this Honourable Court has supervisory
jurisdiction over each and every organ of the review process, including also the
Respondents herein, and has the concomitant power to issue various final reliefs as well as
conservatory and/or interim, intermediate or interlocutory orders stopping, postponing
and/or varying the manner of performance of the review and referendum process prior to
the referendum currently scheduled for August 4th, 2010.
66. THAT this Honourable Court do order that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents do provide a
full account of all public funds and resources utilised in the constitution review and
referendum process and a justification for the same.
67. THAT this Honourable Court do order that the 1st Respondent (and all state officers he is
answerable for) and the 2nd Respondent cease to engage in any or any partisan civic
education and/or political campaign, and give an accounting and/or refund of any funds
improperly utilised in contradiction of the law.
68. THAT this Honourable Court do order that the 3rd Respondent reopen the electoral
register and provide a reasonable opportunity for Kenyans in the diaspora to register and
to facilitate their voting in the referendum to replace this Constitution.
69. THAT this Honourable Court do order that the 2nd Respondent make accessible to the
Petitioners all verbatim recordings of its meetings, including particularly the meetings
conducted after receipt of the Parliamentary Select Committee draft to date.
70. THAT this Honourable Court do issue an order directing the cancellation and/or
postponement of the August 4th 2010 referendum until the Respondents have complied
with the orders of this Honourable Court and until a level electoral playing field is reestablished.
71. THAT this Honourable Court do issue an order directing that the review and/or
referendum process be indefinitely postponed and/or cancelled until all the contentious
17
issues in the draft constitution as identified in this Petition have been specifically revisited
and addressed taking into account the concerns of the Petitioners.
72. THAT this Honourable Court do issue an order directing that the review and/or
referendum process be indefinitely postponed and/or cancelled until the illegal and
unconstitutional amendments of the 2nd Respondent to the Parliamentary Select
Committee draft are reversed. Including in particular the right to have no international
legislation without representation.
73. THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE this Honourable Court do issue an order directing that
the Respondents and all state officers they are answerable for cease to utilise public funds,
or resources or functions for any further civic education, or any further partisan civic
education, until the national referendum scheduled for 4th August 2010.
74. THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE this Honourable Court do issue an order directing the
Respondents to permit the Applicants to frame the remaining Contentious Issues in an
Addendum on Proposed Resolution of Contentious Issues to the proposed constitution to
be voted for along with the vote on the proposed constitution, and to be immediately
thereafter incorporated into the proposed constitution if approved.
75. THAT the costs of this Petition be borne jointly and severally by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd
Respondents in any event.
DATED at Nairobi this 22nd day of June 2010.
MUMA & KANJAMA
ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONERS
Drawn and Filed by:
Muma & Kanjama Advocates
Maendeleo House, 3rd Floor
Monrovia Street
P.O. Box 528–00100
NAIROBI Ref: 2/102/001
To Be Served Upon:
The Attorney General
Attorney General’s Chambers
Sheria House
Harambee Avenue
P.O. Box 40112
NAIROBI
The Committee of Experts
Delta House
Chiromo Road, Westlands
P.O. Box 8703–00200
NAIROBI
18
Interim Independent Electoral Commission
Anniversary Towers, 5th Floor
Monrovia Street
P.O. Box 45371–00100
NAIROB
—
Joram Ragem
wuod Ndinya, wuod Onam, wuod Amolo, wuod Owuoth, wuod Oganyo, wuod Mumbe, wuod Odongo, wuod Olwande, wuod Adhaya, wuod Ojuodhi, wuod Ragem! (Are you my relative?)