A man who is seeking orders to remove President Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto from office now wants the Attorney General barred from representing the two.
Isaac Aluochier argues that nowhere in article 156 or in the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) Act is the Attorney General granted jurisdiction to act as advocate for state or public officers in their private capacities in proceedings to which the national government is not a party.
He adds that if Uhuru and Ruto really seek legal and not illegal, representation, they should appoint an advocate duly qualified to represent them in the petition, whose appointment would not be a violation of any constitution or other legal provisions.
‘But the respondents and their advocate, AG have shown contempt for both the constitution and other law by trampling upon the law rather than respecting upholding and defending it and the court should strike off the appointment of the AG as an advocate for them,’ he said.
According to Aluochier, article 75 of the constitution requires that state officers behave in a manner that avoids any conflict between personal interests and public or official duties and behaves in a manner that avoids compromising any public or official interest in favor of a personal interest.
He adds that by the respondent having appointed the Attorney General as their advocate, they have conferred upon themselves in their private capacities a benefit legal service from public resources when not authorized to do so which amounts to abuse of office.
High court Judge Mumbi Ngugui however declined to hear the case and referred it to Justice Isaac Lenaola. The case will be mentioned on December 6.
In the case, Aluochier, claims that prior to becoming President, between August 27,2010 and April 2012, Uhuru was Kanu Chairman and continued to hold the position of an appointed Deputy Prime Minister of Kenya right until he assumed office as President.
He has accused Ruto of prior to becoming Deputy President, between August 27 2010 and August 2011, was both the Deputy Party Leader, Strategy of the Orange Democratic Movement ( ODM) and appointed Minister for Higher Education, Science and Technology.
The petitioner wants the court declare to that by the operation of Article 75(3) of the Constitution, the Respondents were rendered disqualified from holding any other State office.
He also wants the court to order the respondents ’ holding of the offices of President and Deputy President to cease with immediate effect, as they are not qualified to hold these or any other State office.