In a closely watched ruling, Kenya’s High Court has cleared United Democratic Alliance (UDA) candidate Ahmed Maalim Hassan to participate in the Banisa Constituency by‑election, dismissing a challenge that questioned his eligibility on grounds of dual citizenship.
Justice Lawrence Mugambi, in a judgment delivered on Thursday, labeled the petition “premature, speculative and legally misdirected.” The court found that the petitioner had wrongly bypassed the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC)’s Dispute Resolution Committee, attempting instead to invoke the court’s original constitutional jurisdiction.
On substance, Justice Mugambi rejected the dual citizenship claim, reasoning that the constitutional prohibition on dual citizens serves state officers, not prospective candidates. At this stage, Maalim Hassan remains a contender, not an officeholder. “Why not wait for the facts to crystallize?” the judge asked, suggesting that demand for renunciation before anyone has been elected could unfairly limit democratic participation.
The court also emphasized that invoking constitutional jurisdiction to challenge nomination decisions risks undermining the established dispute‑resolution framework. Under Article 87 of the Constitution, pre‑election disputes must first be aired through the IEBC’s processes and only later be subject to judicial review—not be recast as constitutional petitions.
Having found the petition devoid of merit, Justice Mugambi dismissed it with costs, effectively removing the legal barrier to Maalim Hassan’s name appearing on the ballot for the by‑election scheduled for November 27, 2025.
The by‑election was triggered by the death of the previous MP, Kulow Maalim Hassan, whose passing left the seat vacant.
Why this matters: The ruling carries implications beyond Banisa. By affirming that dual citizenship rules apply only to state officeholders—and not necessarily to candidates—it may set a precedent for future nomination disputes. It also reinforces the importance of the IEBC’s dispute resolution process, affirming that courts should not be the first port of call for electoral challenges.
