Mike Sonko to know fate of his Mombasa governor bid on Tuesday, June 14

Justice John Mativo of the Mombasa High Court has scheduled a hearing on Tuesday, June 14 to determine whether the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) should disqualify or allow Mike Sonko to vie for the Mombasa Gubernatorial seat.

According to the presiding judge, both parties will be accorded sufficient time on the day to argue their positions on the matter. IEBC have already appointed a yet to be named law firm to represent them in the case.

The former Nairobi Governor was on Friday, June 10 directed by Justice Mativo to serve all his suit documents to IEBC within three days. According to Sonko's legal team, he and his running mate Kisauni Member of Parliament Ali Mbogo want IEBC's decision quashed.

They also want a decision by the Mombasa County returning officer declining his application to run for governor quashed. The returning officer on June 7 specifically pointed out a move by the Members of County Assembly (MCA) in Nairobi to impeach Sonko in 2020 as the basis for disqualifying him from the polls.

File image of Mike Sonko campaigning in Mombasa Pulse Live Kenya

Pending matters at the Supreme Court

According to Sonko's lawyer Derrick Odhiambo, the impeachment proceedings are yet to be finalised, pending a case before the Supreme Court. “There are other connected matters pending in connection with this matter in which the applicant (Mr Sonko) has an interest and in which the office of the Attorney General is acting.”

Sonko's legal team in his suit papers reiterated the significance of the case, categorically stating the need to have the matter settled expeditiously. “This is a matter of significant public interest consideration and policy and it is also in the interest of justice that it is heard and determined expeditiously given the tight electoral timelines.”

Sonko through his legal team concluded by blaming the commission and specifically IEBC Chairman Wafula Chebukati of not being impartial as well as succumbing to pressure from third parties.

“The second respondent’s (Mr Chebukati) decisions are in conflict with powers and requirements of his office to act independently, impartially and without fear or favour,” argues Sonko.