Petition opposing my Presidential bid premature, Raila says

Presidential Aspirant Raila Odinga has opposed a petition filed by Ekuru Aukot seeking to bar him from contesting as a presidential candidate in the August 9th 2022 general election.

Raila has termed the petition an afterthought and an abuse of the court premised on misapplication and misapprehension of the law.

He further argues that he is not a candidate in the forthcoming election since i-he is yet to present his papers to the IEBC for verification and approval, and that IEBC will deal with matters on objections and disputes on his candidature at the appropriate time.

Raila maintains that the petition is therefore premature and the issue of his nomination isn’t ripe for determination by the court.

He argues that the petitioner is relying on hearsay and rumours as well as inadmissible evidence in the form of Newspaper cuttings which Raila says is contrary to the provisions of the Evidence act.

“The petition is based on a misinterpretation of the law, and specifically the Retirement Benefits (Deputy President and Designated State Officers) Act, 2015, specifically in section 4 which provides for instances when a person entitled to benefits under the Act may not receive the said benefits,” He argues.

Raila says the petitioner Aukot has prematurely invoked the court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine nomination disputes without following the due process.

In the petition, Aukot wants the court to direct IEBC not to clear Raila, Wiper Party Leader Kalonzo Muryoka and ANC party Leader Musalia Mudavadi saying having served as a Prime Minister and Vice Presidents respectively, they are public officers and therefore unqualified to vie for the Presidency.

He argues that the three are beneficiaries of the Retirement Benefits (Deputy President and Designated State Officers) Act enacted by Parliament in 2015 which recognizes grants them a generous retirement package and an obligation to serve as advisors to the government and the people of Kenya.

Raila has however urged the Court to dismiss the petition with costs saying it is defective both in form and in substance and is therefore unmerited and brought in bad faith.