By PAMELA CHEPKEMEI
A lawyer and three activists have told a court in Nairobi that President Uhuru Kenyatta’s lead counsel at International Criminal Court (ICC) is seeking information about them from two mobile phone operators in breach of their constitutional rights.
The four moved to court Thursday claiming that their rights to privacy are likely to be infringed if they are not allowed to join the case filed by lawyer Stephen Kay.
“The applicants are apprehensive that they are among the persons whose rights and fundamental freedoms may be contravened,” said lawyer Harun Ndubi.
The case lodged by Ndubi and activists Ndungu Wainaina, James Gondi and Njonjo Mue was yesterday certified as urgent by High Court Judge Mumbi Ngugi.
READ MORE
Uhuru Kenyatta: I hold no grudges and ill will against anybody
Twin court win revives Jubilee party
Uhuru-era policies and 'roadside' declarations haunted by queries
Raila's bid for AUC post exposes Kenya's complex political matrix
The four claim that they have been targeted because they have dealt with victims of post-election violence.
She directed the parties to appear before Justice Isaac Lenaola next Tuesday.
The four told the court that they have known that the case lodged by President Kenyatta’s lawyer last year at the High Court in Nairobi against Safaricom and Airtel seeks details of call records and private communication of individuals in contravention of the Constitution.
The case, which is pending, was classified as confidential and is always heard in camera. Kay sought the information for purposes of the trial against President Kenyatta at The Hague.
Ndubi and his co-applicants fear that the case may be heard and determined without their input.
They want the High Court to make public the proceedings. The four have asked the court to issue an order giving them the details of the suit, copies of all pleadings filed by Kay and the status of the suit.
They have named the High Court Registrar as the respondent. Kay and the two mobile phone service operators are interested parties.
They claim that they have previously sought information from the High Court Registry but were denied and advised to seek court orders.
They were informed that they can only be given the case documents after the court issues an order compelling the registry to do so.
