The European Union Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) has sent a strong message to Supreme Court judges who failed to show up for a case seeking the postponement of the Presidential election on Wednesday, terming their absence as 'highly unusual'.
The EOM stated that it was crucial for the judges to show up for the hearing as it was vital in determining the direction of the nation.
The Union added that the no-show by judges had in effect cut off the legal path for remedy and by so doing had contradicted the Constitution.
"This morning (Wednesday), most of the judges were away and the Supreme Court did not achieve the necessary quorum to hear a petition for a delay to the poll.
[caption caption="File Photo of Supreme Court Judges"]
[/caption]
"The lack of a quorum is highly unusual for a Supreme Court hearing and has raised serious questions among Kenyan stakeholders, including about possible political interference.
"Hearing the case today was critical for an adjudication on the election before polling due to take place tomorrow (Thursday 26 October).
"Not hearing this case has de facto cut off the legal path for remedy. Courts have a fundamental role in adjudicating disputes in electoral processes, and in so doing providing access to remedy in case of problems or disputes.
"Access to legal remedy is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution and international law," read part of the statement.
Speaking to Kenyans.co.ke, the Mission's press officer Paul Anderson confirmed the statement but stated that it was not a warning to the Supreme Court.
The election observers added that they would continue assessing the role of the judiciary in terms of election-related responsibilities and whether any obstacles are put in its way.
The EU further appealed to all involved parties to unite in the interest of all Kenyan people and urged the Jubilee Party and the National Super Alliance (NASA) to respect the rule of law and separation of powers.
"The inability of the Supreme Court to hear today’s case raises serious questions about due process and opportunity for remedy, which undermines the credibility of the election.
"It would have been much preferred for the Court to have had an opportunity to rule on this case, in line with the Constitution and before the election, in freedom and safety," stated the EOM.
[caption caption="Chief Justice David Maraga"]
[/caption]
Also read: Supreme Court Makes Final Decision on Presidential Election
