The Supreme Court has directed Attorney-General Dorcas Oduor to provide legal advice on a constitutional dispute that could determine whether impeached State officers can vie for elective office while court cases challenging their removal remain pending.
The matter, which raises significant constitutional questions ahead of the 2027 General Election, centres on whether an impeachment immediately disqualifies a State officer from seeking elective office or whether that disqualification should await the conclusion of all judicial processes.
The apex court issued the directive during proceedings in a case that seeks clarity on the interpretation of constitutional provisions governing impeachment, eligibility for public office and the right to seek elective positions.
The judges noted that the Attorney-General, as the principal legal adviser to the national government, would assist the court in addressing the constitutional issues raised in the petition and in interpreting the legal consequences of impeachment where appeals or other court proceedings are still active.
At the heart of the dispute is the legal status of impeached public officials whose removal has been challenged before the courts. The petitioners argue that because impeachment decisions are subject to judicial review and appeals, affected leaders should not be permanently barred from contesting elections before the courts make a final determination.
They contend that denying such individuals an opportunity to seek elective office before the exhaustion of legal remedies would undermine constitutional guarantees of fair hearing, access to justice and political rights.
On the other hand, those supporting immediate disqualification argue that impeachment is a constitutional accountability mechanism whose decisions remain valid unless and until they are overturned by a competent court. They maintain that allowing impeached officials to contest elections before the conclusion of their appeals could undermine public confidence in constitutional institutions and the integrity of public office.
The Supreme Court observed that the questions before it extend beyond the circumstances of individual litigants and have far-reaching implications for constitutional governance, electoral law and public accountability.
The judges indicated that guidance from the Attorney-General would assist the court in resolving issues touching on the interpretation of the Constitution, particularly on the relationship between impeachment proceedings, judicial review and electoral eligibility.
The court is expected to consider whether impeachment creates an immediate constitutional disability or whether such a disability should only become final after all legal challenges have been determined.
Legal experts say the eventual ruling could shape the political future of several current and former State officers who have either been impeached or face impeachment proceedings but intend to seek elective office in the next general election.
The decision is also expected to clarify the legal position for electoral agencies, including the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), which is responsible for clearing candidates for elections.
Should the Supreme Court rule that impeached officials remain eligible while their court challenges are pending, candidates whose removals are under judicial review could present nomination papers without waiting for final judgments.
Conversely, a finding that impeachment takes immediate effect unless set aside by a court would require such leaders to first secure favourable court decisions before becoming eligible to contest elections.
Constitutional lawyers say the judgment is likely to become a landmark precedent defining the interaction between political accountability mechanisms and constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue further directions after receiving the Attorney-General's submissions, before setting timelines for the hearing and eventual determination of the constitutional questions raised in the case.
