NAIROBI, Kenya — The High Court has upheld the nomination and approval of Kithure Kindiki as Deputy President, ruling that the process was conducted in an open, transparent and constitutionally compliant manner.
In a decision delivered by Justice Freda Mugambi on behalf of a three-judge bench, the court found that Parliament acted within its constitutional mandate and did not violate public participation requirements during the approval process.
The ruling effectively dismisses petitions challenging Kindiki’s elevation, affirming that the National Assembly followed lawful procedures anchored in openness and accountability.
Court: Not all parliamentary decisions require public participation
At the centre of the dispute was whether Parliament was constitutionally required to conduct public participation before approving the Deputy President nominee.
The bench held that the nature of the decision was a structured parliamentary vote rather than a policy-making exercise that would necessitate broad public consultation.
“Public participation, the purpose of which is to inform the narrative and policy of citizen-orientated public decision-making, would add nothing of constitutional value to a binary vote of this character,” the court stated.
The judges further observed that even under a broad interpretation of public participation, the circumstances surrounding the nomination did not trigger a requirement for structured public engagement.
Instead, the court emphasised that what was constitutionally required was openness in parliamentary proceedings rather than public hearings.
Parliament acted in open and transparent manner — court
Justice Mugambi held that the National Assembly met the constitutional threshold through transparency, accessibility and procedural openness during the approval process.
“We do find that the proceedings of the National Assembly on the nomination of His Excellency Kindiki were conducted in a fully open and transparent manner,” she said.
According to the court, the proceedings were accessible to the public and conducted under full institutional scrutiny.
Members of the public were able to follow the debate through live broadcasts, while Parliament’s official records captured the entire process.
“The debate was televised, the proceedings were recorded in Hansard, the press was free to report, and members of Parliament were directly accountable to their constituents for the manner in which they exercised their votes,” the judgment stated.
The bench held that this level of openness satisfied Article 118(1)(a) of the Constitution, which requires Parliament to conduct its business in an open manner.
“We are therefore satisfied that this openness and transparency, which is the constitutional core of Article 118(1)(a), was amply satisfied,” Justice Mugambi ruled.
Court clarifies scope of public participation
The judges further clarified that not every parliamentary decision automatically requires direct public participation, particularly where Parliament is exercising its constitutional voting mandate.
In this case, the approval of the Deputy President nominee was deemed a legislative vote rather than a policy formulation process requiring structured public input.
Also Read: High Court upholds Gachagua impeachment, validates Kindiki’s appointment
“For the foregoing reasons, we hold that public participation was not constitutionally required for the nomination and approval of His Excellency Kindiki as Deputy President under Article 149(1),” the court ruled.
Petition dismissed
The decision effectively dismisses legal challenges to Kindiki’s appointment and affirms that Parliament acted within its constitutional authority in approving his nomination.
The ruling now stands as a key judicial affirmation of the legality of the succession process following the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua.
