Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) and the IEBC have been blocked from commenting on former Kiambu Governor Ferdinand Waititu’s case.
Through his lawyer, John Swaka, Waititu said the two commissions continued to comment on whether he can vie for the Nairobi governor seat even though the case is yet to be determined.
Justice Antony Mrima directed parties involved to refrain from discussing matters in a court outside the jurisdiction of the court.
“I direct the lawyers in this matter to advise their clients to respect doctrine of subjudice,” the judge said.
The case will be mentioned on February 1 for further directions.
On Wednesday, Babayao as he is popularly known received a reprieve after IEBC published his name among 12 independent candidates seeking to take over operations at City Hall.
The former county boss on Tuesday moved to court to challenge a decision by IEBC to block him from vying for the seat that fell vacant following Mike Sonko’s impeachment.
In his application, Waititu argued that though he has been charged with corruption, he is yet to be convicted.
“As it stands, the applicant in this matter has not been convicted of any crime and has fully complied with all electoral guidelines provided when running for the aforementioned electoral position,” court documents read.
The ex-county boss believes the decision by IEBC cannot be legally upheld as there are no legal provisions barring him from vying for an electoral position.
He also noted that the Attorney General indicated that the reason for barring him from vying for the post was over his impeachment.
Further, Waititu claimed that the IEBC and Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) are colluding to convict him even as the graft case remains unconcluded.
“From the foregoing, the 1st respondent (IEBC) cannot then bar applicant (Waititu) from seeking an elective position.”
He also told the court that he has challenged his impeachment which is set to be heard before a three-judge bench.
“Applicant will continue to suffer without the intervention of this honorable court which ought to look at the process that was both illegal and procedural leading to the decision that has been stated by the 1st respondent (IEBC),” he said.