I AM NOT SEEKING A REVIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISION BUT DAMAGES – AHMEDNASIR SAYS.

0
325
Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi who has distanced his case at East Africa Court of Justice with the rest saying his case do not challenge Supreme Court decision but a "whgossipy WhatsApp messaging rants" between members of the Court"/PHOTO BY S.A.N.

BY SAM ALFAN.

Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi is not seeking a review of any decision of the Supreme Court in a case he has filed at the East Africa Court of Justice.

Responding to stories filed in local dailies, Ahmednasir said he is seeking to challenge a “gossipy WhatsApp messaging rants” between members of the Court initiated by Hon Chief Justice Martha Koome and then communicated to him through the Registrar of the Court.

The outspoken lawyer whose attacks on the apex court has not been received well by the seven judges of the apex court agreed with the Court’s decision that matters finalised by the Supreme Court cannot be subject to review by the regional court.

“I AGREE in Toto…the judicial rulings and judgments of the Supreme Court of Kenya cannot be reviewed/set aside by the East African Court of Justice…that is trite law,” said Ahmednasir on social media X (formerly Twitter).

Ahmednasir further said he was not in the same boat as Martha Karua and former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko. And his case isn’t against the Supreme Court.

“It is against the Republic of Kenya. And I’m not seeking a reversal of the Court’s “WhatsApp gossip”. I’m seeking damages, “said Ahmednasir also known as the Grand mullah.

Ahmednasir sued the Supreme Court of Kenya demanding Sh200 million for damages after the top court imposed an indefinite ban on him and his associates form appearing before them.

The outspoken lawyer is seeking to be paid Sh200 million for damages from the cases he had to drop after the court denied him audience.

It is his argument that the top court infringed on his universally accepted right to fair administrative action and right to access justice and fair trial.

He wants the regional court to direct the state to reverse the pronouncement made by the apex court on 18th January banning him and his law firm from appearing before the court.

The Supreme dealt the former justice minister blow after the Apex court held that its decisions are not subject to review or appeal at the EACJ.

This is a major blow to Karua who had been awarded Sh.5 million for breach of her right to be heard by Kenyan Courts.

Through advisory opinion, the Supreme Court Judges led by Chief Justice Koome, Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, Judges Mohammed Ibrahim, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndungu and Isaac Lenaola said the constitution bestows upon the Supreme Court, as the apex court, the final judicial authority in regard to the interpretation and application of its provisions.

“We further hold that, domestic courts and regional courts, in this case, the EACJ, do not have a vertical relationship, meaning that decision of the Supreme Court are not subject to appeal at EACJ,” said Supreme Court in the advisory opinion sought by Attorney General.

The Apex court further added that the Arusha based regional court does not have a merit review jurisdiction over decision by the Supreme Court.

Attorney General Justin Muturi approached the Supreme Court seeking advisory opinion on whether the decision of the Supreme Court is subject to review by EACJ and legal effect of the regional court decisions.

Decision by the Supreme Court has made lawyers give their opinion. Lawyer Gitobu Imanyara argues that interpretation of the treaty establishing the East African Community is not a function of any of the judiciaries of the member states.

“It lies exclusively with the East African Court of Justice. The advisory by the Kenyan Supreme Court on the Martha Karua Case is totally misplaced and is of no binding value. It is self-serving and retrogressive,” Imanyara says.

Senior Counsel Martha Karua added her voice by faulting the Supreme Court saying Supreme Court acted as judges in their own cause and gave a convenient advisory that is supposed to protect them from accountability, otherwise why would they purport to interpret East Africa Community Treaty which is solely the preserve of EACJ.

Constitution lawyer Waikwa Wanyoike said the court advisory opinion is on EACJ is so self-serving.

“The Court, has obfuscated and minimised very complex and sophisticated issues into a feel-good self-administered therapy session,” said Wanyoike

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here