Thirdway Alliance party leader Ekuru Aukot has filed a case in the Supreme Court seeking clarity on which candidates are to participate in the fresh presidential election.
Ekuru petitioned the Supreme Court to clarify those eligible to contest in the fresh poll set for October 17 after IEBC allowed only two candidates to participate in the repeat election.
Aukot wants to know whether other candidates, save for President Uhuru Kenyatta and NASA leader Raila Odinga, should be barred from the race.
He wants a clarification on the meaning and effect of "fresh elections" as ordered by the court on September 1st, 2017.
In his petition, Aukot argued that he had a direct, legitimate and inalienable constitutional right to participate in the presidential election as ordered by the court having been a presidential candidate in the August 8 poll.
“I believe that my political right and that of my constituents as enshrined in the Constitution are threatened, violated and infringed by the decision of IEBC and Chairman Wafula Chebukati to exclude me in the fresh election without lawful justification,” Aukot submitted.
Aukot also noted that IEBC could regulate the number of candidates to a presidential election only in the circumstances contemplated in Article 138 (5) (6) in the Constitution, which is not the case now.
Mr Aukot wants the Court to hear his case as soon as possible, adding that the matter should be heard before the process of printing ballot papers commences as he will be affected by the process.
“In light of the mandatory time constraints set by the court's judgment, this application ought to be disposed of expeditiously to avoid a delay in the inclusion of my name in the ballot,” he stated.
He filed the petition after the Electoral Commission announced that the repeat elections would be held on October 17th and would only feature President Kenyatta and Mr Odinga.
IEBC's decision to lock out the other Presidential candidates was based on former Chief Justice Willy Mutunga's 2013 interpretation of what a fresh election meant.
“If the petitioner was only one of the candidates, and who had taken the second position in vote-tally to the President-elect, then the “fresh election” will, in law, be confined to the petitioner and the President-elect,” Mutunga's judgment read in part.
