AG Githu Muigai had earlier within the Court stipulated timelines submitted his amicus curiae brief seeking to join the Presidential proceedings as a friend of the court.
Muigai submitted his application(pdf) to be a friend of the court on several constitutional grounds. In one, he cites himself as protector of public interest and rule of law.
1)The Applicant has Constitutional and statutory obligation to assist the court in matters involving complex constitutional and legal questions and to place materials and expert research which will aid in the fair, just and impartial adjudication of the issues in dispute.
4) The conduct of presidential elections is a matter of great public interest necessitating the participation of the Attorney-General as the principal legal advisor to the Government, promoter, protector of the rule of law and defender of the public interest.
The AG has however in more than one occasion shown that he is the personal protector and defender of Uhuru Kenyatta. He has turned and twisted the law to suit his agenda and gotten away with it.
In 2013 he effectively duped the court into making a blunder that is frowned to date one that Orengo yesterday kept reminding the Supreme Court. Not only did Muigai defend Uhuru at the Supreme Court, but at the Hague.
While he uses that office as a tag, he in effect does not protect the public interest but Uhuru’s and Raila Odinga’s sworn affidavit (pdf) opposes his application in totality.
7. The National Government is not a party to these proceedings and the Attorney-General can only appear as amicus with leave of the court, which leave ought to be denied in the circumstances of this Petition.
8. The principle of neutrality and fidelity to the law must govern the relationship of an amicus curiae with the principal parties and their arguments.
9. I reasonably believe based on the Attorney General’s past/previous conduct that the Attorney General is decidedly partisan on the issues before the Court
11. I invite the Court to take judicial notice of the fact that having been admitted as amicus curiae in the Petition I filed in 2013, the Attorney General proceeded to take a partisan view and wholly supported the 1st and 3rd Respondent’s case to the Petitioner’s detriment.
12. It is similarly a matter of public notoriety that the Attorney-General has previously canvassed the 3rd Respondent’s case at the International Criminal Court.
16. There is no complex constitutional issue requiring the intervention of the Attorney-General as amicus.
The rains started beating Muigai yesterday when the Courts rejected oral submissions and decided that due to time constraints, their rulings will be based on the written submissions only.
This means, the judges will read both submissions and weigh them on the context of the petition at hand and make a ruling. Most likely they will rule against Muigai.
During yesterday’s proceedings, he kept trying to remain relevant by raising issues that were not even asked of him. A good moment was when the Court was seeking consensus on what time the hearing should begin and the modalities of the presentation.
“Thank you Attorney General, but this court can make its own decisions, it doesn’t need any help” Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu to Githu Muigai.