Siaya Governor James Orengo has critiqued the Supreme Court over the selection of words used in the presidential petition ruling delivered by Martha Koome.
Raila had filed a petition at the apex court seeking to invalidate William Ruto’s presidential win.
In the petition, the Azimio la Umoja One Kenya Coalition captain had said the IEBC servers were infiltrated by hackers who interfered with results.
However, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed portal infiltration claims in a petition challenging President-Elect William Ruto’s win as ‘hot air’ having fallen acutely short of the evidentiary threshold.
The court singled out a submission by lawyer Julie Soweto in which Raila Odinga’s legal team claimed a Venezuelan National named Jose Camargo interfered with the public portal during the August 9 polls.
But speaking on Sunday, September 11, Senior Counsel James Orengo faulted the Supreme of Kenya for using political language in its verdict.
Orengo, who was among the legal team that represented Raila said the language used by Koome was not judicial as it demeaned the other party.
“I want to say this without fear of contradiction, the judgment that the Supreme Court judges rendered was not a judicial judgment. The person who wrote that judgment has done a great injustice to the rule of law,” Orengo said.
Orengo said the selection of words used in the ruling by the seven judges of the Supreme Court was meant to serve a purpose that had nothing to do with the law.
“Judges speak in words that are measured so that even the loser in a court of law feels like justice has been done. Not even a baraza presided by a Chief would use the kind of language that was used at the Supreme Court. Shame to you judges!” Orengo said.
