The Court of Appeal has declined to suspend a High Court ruling that declared the Azimio party as the majority in the National Assembly, dealing a blow to Speaker Moses Wetangula’s efforts to overturn the decision.
Wetangula had appealed the ruling, arguing that it had severely disrupted legislative functions. However, the Court dismissed this claim, stating that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that parliamentary business had been paralyzed.
The judges observed that despite the contested Speaker’s ruling of February 12, 2025, the National Assembly continued to function, albeit with some disagreements. This indicated that legislative activities had not been entirely disrupted, undermining the argument that the ruling had caused dysfunction.
The Court further ruled that granting a stay order would amount to prematurely endorsing the Speaker’s decision, as the High Court had yet to determine whether it complied with its earlier judgment. The judges emphasized that allowing the Speaker’s appeal at this stage would interfere with ongoing legal proceedings, setting a problematic precedent.
Concerns that the ruling could lead to legal consequences such as contempt of court proceedings against Speaker Wetangula were also dismissed. The judges noted that the possibility of being summoned to court for an allegation of contempt and the associated inconvenience or embarrassment was not a sufficient reason to stay court proceedings. They reiterated that all parties must adhere to judicial decisions until the matter is conclusively resolved.
With this decision, the dispute over the National Assembly’s majority party remains unresolved, prolonging the legal battle. The ruling reinforces the judiciary’s stance that parliamentary procedures must align with constitutional provisions and legal frameworks. This outcome underscores the continued tension between the legislative and judicial arms of government as they navigate complex political disputes.
The matter now awaits further deliberation in the High Court, which is expected to make a final determination on whether the Speaker’s decision aligns with legal provisions. Until then, the National Assembly will continue operating under the current arrangement, with the Azimio party holding the majority status as declared by the High Court.
This ruling highlights the judiciary’s role in interpreting constitutional mandates and ensuring compliance with the rule of law. The case remains significant in shaping parliamentary governance and the balance of power within the legislature. The ongoing legal contestation serves as a reminder that political disputes must be resolved within legal and constitutional frameworks to uphold democratic principles.
As legal proceedings continue, all parties involved will be closely watching for the final ruling, which will have lasting implications on parliamentary operations and political alignments within the National Assembly. The broader political landscape may also be influenced by this decision, affecting future legislative processes and power dynamics within the government.
