About: BBI Judgement

An Entity of Type: Thing, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

David Ndii & Others V. Attorney General & Others also known as the BBI Judgement was a landmark ruling made in the Kenya High Court on 13 May 2021, declaring an injunction on Kenya's Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) from proceeding with President Uhuru Kenyatta's and retired Prime Minister Raila Odinga's Building Bridges Initiative. The five-judge bench was to determine seventeen questions raised on the petition against the BBI Process.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • David Ndii & Others V. Attorney General & Others also known as the BBI Judgement was a landmark ruling made in the Kenya High Court on 13 May 2021, declaring an injunction on Kenya's Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) from proceeding with President Uhuru Kenyatta's and retired Prime Minister Raila Odinga's Building Bridges Initiative. The five-judge bench was to determine seventeen questions raised on the petition against the BBI Process. On 18 March 2018, President Uhuru Kenyatta and retired Prime Minister Raila Odinga had what is now referred to as the "handshake", an initiative which they termed as being "towards a united Kenya". After the famous "handshake" with Mr. Odinga, the President appointed the Building Bridges to Unity Advisory Taskforce (BBI Taskforce) comprising 14 committee members and 2 joint secretaries through Gazette Notice No. 5154 of 24 May 2018. In a unanimous decision, the bench, led by Justice Joel Ngugi, declared the process unconstitutional and stopped the IEBC from conducting a referendum on the Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Bill. The bench also ruled that the president had acted in excess of his powers when he initiated the process of amending the constitution through the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI). The bench described the BBI process as "a presidential initiative guised as a popular initiative", and allowing it to be sustained would amount to having the Head of State as promoter and referee of his own initiative. "In reality, BBI was the president's initiative which is contrary to article 257 of the Constitution. The task force that morphed to a steering committee was an unlawful and unconstitutional outfit. It was invalid from the beginning," said the judges. The court also held that a sitting president can be sued personally in civic proceedings if they act against the constitution for his actions or inaction. According to the court, President Uhuru Kenyatta should have entered into appearance in the petition because it was a civil case, instead of the Attorney General responding on his behalf. (en)
dbo:thumbnail
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 67661225 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 42950 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1099671149 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dcterms:subject
rdfs:comment
  • David Ndii & Others V. Attorney General & Others also known as the BBI Judgement was a landmark ruling made in the Kenya High Court on 13 May 2021, declaring an injunction on Kenya's Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) from proceeding with President Uhuru Kenyatta's and retired Prime Minister Raila Odinga's Building Bridges Initiative. The five-judge bench was to determine seventeen questions raised on the petition against the BBI Process. (en)
rdfs:label
  • BBI Judgement (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:depiction
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License