By Rasto Wamalwa.
A three-judge bench led by Justice Jairus Ngaah has ruled that National Assembly Speaker and Ford Kenya Party Leader Moses Wetang’ula made a mistake in declaring Kenya Kwanza as the majority coalition in Parliament, dismissing his decision as “hot air.”
The dispute over parliamentary majority arose following the 2022 General Election when Azimio la Umoja One Kenya Coalition, led by Raila Odinga, challenged Wetang’ula’s decision.
In October 2022, the Speaker ruled that Kenya Kwanza had 179 MPs, while Azimio la Umoja had 157, a move that sparked protests from Azimio legislators.
Embakasi East MP Babu Owino and other opposition members insisted that they had a higher number of lawmakers and should have been recognized as the majority.
In defense of his decision, Wetang’ula argued that coalitions are dynamic and can shift before and after elections.
He noted that several parties initially aligned with Azimio had switched allegiance to Kenya Kwanza, thus increasing its numbers in Parliament.
Additionally, he claimed that some MPs had entered into coalition agreements under coercion and duress, implying that their realignment was a correction of past injustices.
Unconvinced by the Speaker’s ruling, twelve petitioners moved to court, challenging his declaration.
They argued that Azimio la Umoja actually had 171 MPs, while Kenya Kwanza had 156, and accused Wetang’ula of violating both the Constitution and the National Assembly Standing Orders by unilaterally reassigning fourteen MPs from various parties to Kenya Kwanza.
In its ruling, the three-judge bench, comprising Justices Jairus Ngaah, John Mugwimi Chigiti, and Mugambi, found that Wetang’ula lacked sufficient evidence to support his determination.
The court noted that the Speaker had no legal justification for his decision, as he had failed to present coalition agreements proving that MPs had formally shifted allegiances.
The judges also stated that the Registrar of Political Parties could not be faulted for not verifying the Speaker’s claims, as no valid documentation was submitted to support them.
“The Speaker cannot fault the Registrar of Political Parties. She could not provide what she did not have. The Speaker ought to have presented the agreements that were allegedly submitted during the debate. Without post-election coalition agreements, he had no basis for his decision,” the court ruled.
The ruling casts uncertainty over the operations of the National Assembly, where the division between the Majority and Minority sides determines the leadership of key committees and the handling of government business.
The Majority coalition is responsible for setting the legislative agenda, deciding which motions and bills are prioritized, and influencing parliamentary decisions.
With the Speaker’s decision now overturned, questions remain on whether Parliament will implement the ruling and adjust the House leadership accordingly or whether the matter will escalate into a further legal or political battle.
