Wiper leader Kalonzo Musyoka has broken his silence on last week’s BBI High Court judgement that annulled the BBI process.
In a statement on Twitter, Musyoka urged all Kenyans to respect the rule of law despite disagreeing with the court’s decision.
He was, however, not in agreement with the judgement adding that it was a direct disrespect for the Presidency and the Office of the President.
“Kenya’s constitution-making process has never been easy from the first efforts recorded by the Lancaster House Conference,” his statement read in part.
Musyoka said although a number of Kenyans were not amused by the ruling, he was calling on everyone to respect the Judiciary, which he added, “is an independent constitutional institution”.
READ MORE
Vets allay fears over mass vaccination of animals
Helpful tips to keep dry skin at bay and protect your skin year-round
Kalonzo alleges State of plan to use gene-editing jabs on livestock
Kalonzo Musyoka in talks with Gachagua in bid to 'build strong coalition'
According to Musyoka, the primary intent of BBI was to build real national bridges and not divisions.
He said it was healthy for the nation to disagree but respectfully.
Musyoka’s sentiments come two days after ODM leader Raila Odinga expressed his optimism that the halted BBI “reggae” will win the legal battles it is currently facing.
“We may disagree with the court but we must respect its ruling and its freedom to exercise its judgment as it understands the legal and constitutional matters before it,” Raila said.
The BBI task force, which was annulled in the judgement, has vowed to appeal the court’s decision.
On Friday, the Office of the Attorney General filed a notice of appeal at the HIgh Court and a stay application the Court of Appeal to suspend the High Court Ruling.
“Unless this Application for stay of execution of the order is heard urgently, there is a real risk,” the application read in part.
On Thursday, May 13, the High Court through a five-judge bench ruled that the BBI process was unconstitutional, null and void.
The five-Judge benchrejected the president’s role in initiating constitutional change through a popular initiative.
