Solicitor General Kennedy Ogeto has today told the three-judge bench hearing the BBI appeal case that the 5 judge High Court judges who declared the Building Bridges Initiative as null and void relied on Wikipedia as an authority to make their ruling.
Ogeto who is representing the government and President Uhuru Kenyatta in the appeal case dismantled the null and void ruling in his bid to convince the appellate judges to overturn the ruling made by the High Court Judges.
The Solicitor General who was presenting his case on 29 June 2021 maintained that Justices Joel Ngugi, George Odunga, Jairus Ngaah, Chacha Mwita, and Teresia Matheka based their definition of a popular initiative on Wikipedia’s definition.
The judges were further accused of ruling that the popular initiative is an anti-government drive and not one supported by the government.
“They claimed that popular initiatives are anti-government – this was their finding. And for this regrettable claim, they relied on Wikipedia. They resorted to Wikipedia as an authority.
“Wikipedia describes itself that it is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit – it is manipulated and cannot be relied on as a source,” Ogeto stated.
Ogeto pleaded with the court to restore the people’s sovereign will and affirm the constitution as enacted by Kenya.
“We will demonstrate that our Constitution has no place for the application of basic structure documents. The constitution clearly stipulates how the law was written and can only be passed and amended by referendum and Parliament and judges have no amendment power
“They imposed limitations of Presidential limits – yet he has immunity from civil proceedings,” Ogeto argued.
The BBI case will be heard between June 29 and July 2 with the fate of BBI lying in the hands of seven judges: Daniel Musinga, Justices Roselyn Nambuye, Hannah Okwengu, Patrick Kiage, Gatembu Kairu, Fatuma Sichale and Francis Tuiyott.
Earlier on, there was a light moment in court as one lawyer – Elisha Ongoya struggled to explain the name of his client.
Ongoya was seen shuffling through documents in a bid to trace the name of his clients before Court of Appeal President Justice Daniel Musinga cut him short and asked him to handle crucial matters as a professional lawyer, sparking laughter in the court.