IEBC committee rejects Muhia jurisdiction challenge, to rule on code of conduct breach

The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) committee’s decision to reject the jurisdictional challenge raised by the legal team representing Muhia signals a firm stance on the commission’s quasi-judicial authority to enforce the Electoral Code of Conduct. The dispute arose when the defense team, led by advocates Edward Muriu and Ndegwa Njiru, challenged the committee’s composition and procedural fairness, ultimately leading to a walkout. By dismissing the challenge, the committee has asserted its mandate to proceed with the inquiry into alleged breaches of the code, effectively signaling that it will not be deterred by procedural objections regarding its internal constitution or the perceived hostility of the proceedings.

This development is legally significant as it tests the boundaries of the IEBC’s disciplinary powers under the Elections Act and the Electoral Code of Conduct. The committee’s refusal to entertain the jurisdictional challenge reinforces the principle that administrative bodies, when exercising quasi-judicial functions, possess the inherent power to regulate their own proceedings, provided they adhere to the rules of natural justice. For practitioners, this case serves as a reminder of the high threshold required to successfully challenge the jurisdiction of an electoral tribunal or committee, particularly when the challenge is based on the composition of the panel rather than a clear statutory prohibition.

Legal professionals involved in electoral disputes should closely monitor the outcome of this hearing, as it will likely set a precedent for how the IEBC handles future code of conduct violations. The walkout by the defense team raises critical questions regarding the right to a fair hearing and the potential for judicial review applications in the High Court. Attorneys should advise clients that while procedural objections are a valid litigation strategy, they carry the risk of being overruled, potentially leaving the client without representation during substantive hearings. It is essential to balance aggressive procedural challenges with the need to maintain a presence in the forum to protect the client’s interests on the merits of the case.