Lawyer files intention to appeal BBI court verdict

The legal battle around the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) is headed to the Supreme Court.

Lawyer Morara Omoke has filed his intention to appeal the Court of Appeal’s judgment, arguing the seven Court of Appeal judges erred by finding that the referendum question should be contained in one Bill and not multiple questions.

Omoke’s notice of appeal is the first step of filing a case before the Supreme Court.

Court of Appeal judges Daniel Musinga and Justices Roselyn Nambuye, Hannah Okwengu, Patrick Kiage, Gatembu Kairu, Fatuma Sichale and Francis Tuiyott found that the referendum question should be in one Bill rather than Kenyans being subjected answering to multiple questions.

He wants the Supreme Court to reverse this decision and affirm High Court’s judgment that a referendum should have multiple questions.

In the Court of Appeal, Omoke has urged judges to order Uhuru to refund the money used in BBI. His lawyer Christian Andole asserted that the President had no powers to use public funds for a private agenda.

“The High Court’s finding and declarations were sufficient for an order to make good the loss of public funds; no evidence was needed for that order to be made. I am afraid the liberties of Kenyans will be suspended by a thread so slender as the hair strand that held the sword of the imperial King Dionysius over the head of Damocles. This court should order Uhuru to refund the money used on non-constitutional constitutional amendments,” he argued.

It is a second time a BBI case is being taken the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court dismissed three cases filed by Makueni Governor Kivutha Kibwana and two counties. The Supreme Court ruled that it will not hear the advisory cases filed by Prof Kibwana, Nandi and Kericho counties as there were other cases filed before the High Court raising similar issues.

In a ruling read by Justice Smokin Wanjala, the court said there was a likelihood of issuing conflicting decisions, causing confusion on what should happen.

According to a Supreme Court bench composed of Philomena Mwilu, Mohamed Ibrahim, Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u and Isaac Lenaola, the issues raised required rigorous interpretation, which would not have been achieved if the top court issued an advisory.