President Uhuru Kenyatta has accused the five judge bench which declared the drive for constitutional change of taking advantage of his status as Head of State to infringe on his individuals right as a voter.

Uhuru made the submission through his record of appeal challenging the decision by the high court to declare the Building Bridges Initiative unconstitutional.

Through his lawyers, Uhuru claims he was never served with any court papers despite being adversely mentioned in the case including a determination by the judges that the President can be sued in his individual capacity.

“The treatment of the Appellant by the High Court is a most poignant demonstration of unfairness, by one hand, determining that the appellant was sued in his personal capacity, and on the other hand failing to provide the kind of protections and safeguards the court would ordinarily extend litigants such as confirming they have been served with the proceedings,” the President said in his submission.

Uhuru also argued that the five judge bench decision against him was made without according him a chance to be heard.

Through his submission, Uhuru further argued that the High Court ruling disabuses the doctrine of functional immunity which protects a sitting president from legal proceedings during his tenure of office in respect of things done in excercise of his powers under the constitution.

Also enjoined in the case is ODM party leader Raila Odinga, Chair of the BBI secretariate Dennis Waweru and his assistant Junet Mohamed.

The three in their submission of record of appeal attack the High Court of erroneously attaching the President to promotion of the BBI bill.

According to the trio, the promotion of the BBI bill had already been taken up by the BBI secretariat.

The Independent, Electoral and Boundaries Commission, IEBC also filed an appeal challenging the court’s decision that the commission had no quorum to carry out its mandate.

In its appeal, IEBC said; “We submit that the courts findings on quorum were not founded on no law. The appellant is dully constituted to the extent that it meets the basic threshold under article 250 of the constitution,” IEBC said.