Wetang’ula’s take on court ruling sets bad precedent
By Hansen Owilla, February 10, 2025The High Court ruling on Speaker Moses Wetang’ula’s declaration of Kenya Kwanza as the majority party in the National Assembly is not just a legal matter, it is a significant political development with far-reaching implications.
Wetang’ula and his team have dismissed the ruling as obiter dictum, claiming it is merely an ordinary comment in law that has no binding effect. But is that really the case?
In legal terms, obiter dictum refers to incidental or non-binding remarks made by a judge that do not form the core reasoning (ratio decidendi) of a ruling. However, if the court’s decision was a substantive interpretation of the law regarding parliamentary majority status, then it carries binding authority unless it is overturned by a higher court.
The assertion that the ruling is an obiter dictum, therefore, raises a critical question: Was the court merely offering an opinion, or was it clarifying a constitutional matter that must be respected? One wonders why such rulings don’t come with orders or is it that the petitioners did not make such prayers.
Beyond legal technicalities, this ruling comes at an interesting moment when political realignments are taking centre stage, with growing calls to bring down this regime come 2027. Many have speculated that President William Ruto will be a one-term President, a notion that has clearly rattled the regime into a campaign frenzy, aggressive political manoeuvres and a return to fairly divisive rhetoric of us vs them when what we should discourse is development and this regime’s delivery of its promises.
Typical reaction of a regime under siege as the numbers in Parliament have shifted, compounded by how Riggy G’s ouster has boomeranged with an attendant mass haemorrhage of supporters from Mt Kenya.
This has forced the regime to redirect its focus toward Western Kenya and the North Eastern region in an attempt to consolidate new support bases, a fairly difficult task in the wake of abductions, grandstanding by overzealous supporters and unfulfilled promises made by this regime. In fact, the dynamics are tricky, especially in Western Kenya, and this ruling can be interpreted through a political perspective.
Ford Kenya, unlike the now-defunct ANC, does seem to have the stability to withstand the political turbulence. It has done so since the 1990s and it is the only party that fought for the return of multiparty democracy that still has a party leader as a national principal in Wetang’ula. It has a sizeable following and staying outside the power matrix as KK honchos would want presents a tricky pathway in the consolidation of the Western bloc.
Thus, the implications of Wetang’ula choosing between being a party leader and Speaker of the National Assembly provides a win-win jigsaw fit in the consolidation of power matrixes. He goes with the Speaker and the third in command, the party goes; he goes with the party and his clout at the national level diminishes. Again antagonising Papa wa Roma might prove another catastrophic mistake, but this is politics and we have seen such scripts before.
The presence of ODM leaders in government, complete with a very synchronised choir of praise-singing sycophants, this ruling may not be good news for the Speaker. The potential for ODM and UDA ganging up to hit him hard is real as the new arrangement poised to rally around the President with an eye on 2027 will also pounce on Gachagua-aligned MPs in both the National Assembly and the Senate. ODM overzealous lieutenants are likely to go for throttle for their rightful majority stake and this is likely to be explosive in shaking up a regime that, not too long ago, almost crumbled as politicians infiltrated the Gen Z-led demos to try a coup against the President.
Well, aside from the political framing of the current situation, it is important to note that this controversy of leaders dismissing or taking advantage of judicial rulings exposes a troubling trend – the executive and legislative branches’ increasing disregard for judicial authority. Dismissing a High Court ruling in such a cavalier manner sets a dangerous precedent where political convenience trumps legal correctness.
The principle of separation of powers demands that all arms of government respect judicial pronouncements, even when they are inconvenient. If a ruling is flawed, the proper channel is an appeal, not public dismissal.
— The writer is PhD holder and a media studies researcher