Nasa head of technical committee David Ndii has said the Opposition coalition was prepared for mass action if the Supreme Court failed to consider its evidence.
In an interview on NTV on Tuesday, Dr Ndii defended the decision by saying it came from a need to seek a free democratic space, adding that in the 2013 petition, the Supreme Court only gave a five minute ruling.
“We will call for mass action at the appropriate time. We were going to do this if the election was subverted regardless of whether we went to court or not,” he said.
His remarks have sparked uproar with robust exchanges on social media.
Dr Ndii was adamant that Nasa fought against the election results not for power but for implementation of electoral reforms.
He said cleaning up the electoral system was a political job and not something that a court petition could do.
He added that the Supreme Court would not solve Kenya’s political problems as they have nothing to stop those in power from impunity.
Nasa, he said, only went to court to represent people who would have wanted to do so and not to confront political impunity.
READ : Splits, observers pushed Nasa to seek legal redress
READ: Secession debate points to deep-seated divisions
He added that the country had been calling for mass action since 1991 and the call would not stop as long as “some people try to restore dictatorship”.
“We went to court to stand up for people who may have wanted to go to court to know the truth,” he said.
Dr Ndii said Nasa moving to the Supreme Court was not necessarily to win the case but to show to the world what happened during the electoral process and that the courts are not obligated to rule in favour of the coalition but make a considered judgment showing that they lost fairly in a procedural manner.
“We as Nasa clearly know that the problem we are dealing with is the political impunity and we know courts cannot solve this, he said “We are fighting the election not just to win power but on grounds of implementing electoral reforms.”
He said politics of separatism was fairly normal citing the examples of Britain which has had the Scottish referendum and Brexit, and also Canada, adding that constituent parts of a nation were in a will for union and are free to leave.
“I am only giving people the language to discuss identity politics which has been made a taboo. If you make things taboo you don’t confront them as you are in denial,” he said.
Dr Ndii said Kenya was clearly divided with President Kenyatta on one hand making calls for people to move on while Mr Odinga is stating otherwise.
“We need to discuss why Kenya should stay together just like in an abusive relationship people talk and agree either to break up or move on,” he said.