High Court declares Kindiki DP approval process constitutional

The High Court has upheld the nomination and approval of Kithure Kindiki as Deputy President, ruling that Parliament followed a lawful, transparent and constitutionally compliant process in endorsing his appointment.

In a judgment delivered by Justice Freda Mugambi on behalf of a three-judge bench, the court found that the National Assembly acted within the law and met the constitutional standards governing openness and accountability during the approval process.

The judges rejected claims that the process violated constitutional provisions on public participation, holding that the nature of the decision before Parliament did not require a formal public engagement exercise.

“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 on Monday.

According to the bench, the approval of a Deputy President nominee falls within a category of parliamentary action where transparency and openness are the key constitutional requirements, rather than public hearings or consultations.

The court further noted that even under a broad interpretation of public participation, the circumstances surrounding Kindiki’s nomination and approval did not create an obligation for Parliament to conduct a structured public participation process.

Instead, the judges found that the National Assembly fulfilled its constitutional duty by ensuring that the proceedings were conducted openly and were accessible to the public.

“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,” Justice Mugambi said.

The court observed that the debate on the nomination took place in public and was subjected to various accountability measures throughout the process.

Members of the public were able to follow the proceedings through live broadcasts, while official parliamentary records documented the deliberations and voting 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 judgement noted.

The bench said these measures met the constitutional requirement under Article 118(1)(a), which obliges 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)’s requirement that Parliament conducts its business in an open manner, was amply satisfied,” Justice Mugambi stated.

The judges further clarified that not every parliamentary decision automatically requires direct public participation, especially where Parliament is exercising a clearly defined constitutional mandate through a vote.

In the case of Kindiki’s approval, the court found that the process involved a parliamentary decision-making vote rather than the formulation of policy that would require consultation with the public.

“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.

The decision dismisses challenges that had questioned the legality of Kindiki’s approval and confirms that Parliament acted within its constitutional powers when it endorsed his nomination as Deputy President.