Rejection of 50 CASs sparks a debate.
Today in the Afternoon, The high court of Kenya led by three Justices, Rejected appointment and swearing in of the 50 CASs by President William Ruto.
Notably, The justice stated that it was unconstitutional to appoint more than 23 CASs and their vetting was supposed to be done by the National Assembly of Kenya.
Justice Kanyi stated,”For the avoidance of doubt, the appointment of the 50 CASs is unconstitutional.”
Rejection of 50 CASs has sparked a debate on all social media outlets.
Dabar stated,”As our friends from Azimio are celebrating the ruling by the High Court that the entire appointment of 50 CASs was unconstitutional (Null andvoid), they are also not telling you that failing to appoint the CASs will not lower Kenya’s cost of living. Even if the court would have ruled in their favour of their appointment, it would have no impact on the country’s high cost of living.”
Cornelius expressed,”Next after the nullification of 50 CASs will be the fall of Finance Act 2023. Hata hiyo itaanguka kama burukenge. Wembe ni ule ule.”
Mutoro wrote,”Judiciary flexes it’s muscle against the Executive appointments of CASs .Public participation was only done for 23 CASs and not the 50 CASs that were appointed. Accordingly, the appointment of the 27 additional CASs was unconstitutional. By extension, the entire complement of 50 CASs is unconstitutional.”
Farid stated,”President William Ruto has been championing for the rule of law and he is now at the centre stage of upholding after the High Court ruled out all 50 CASs positions.”
Senator cherargei stated,”The Judiciary has gone rogue by ruling that creation of CASs positions is unconstitutional without considering merits of the case. In the FY 2023/24 Judiciary received additionally 4B above their normal budget but they is a continuation of cases backlog, corruption and ineptitude in dispensation of Justice by Judiciary. We shall appeal this decision that negates public interest and principles of Natural justice.”
Also read Fate of presidential petition; Supreme court renders verdict