NAIROBI, Kenya — The High Court has issued a landmark ruling declaring that familial or political associations alone cannot disqualify individuals from holding public office, unless supported by concrete evidence of undue influence or procedural misconduct.
The decision, delivered by a three-judge bench of Justices John Chigiti, Roselyn Aburili, and Bahati Mwamuye, arose from a petition challenging the appointment of Hassan Noor as a commissioner of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC).
Petitioners had cited Noor’s family connection to Suna East MP Junet Mohamed as grounds for his disqualification, alleging potential bias and compromised independence.
But the court dismissed the claims, stating that “perception alone, if not grounded in fact, cannot be elevated to a constitutional disqualification.”
“To suggest otherwise would impose an unreasonable burden on qualified individuals,” the ruling reads.
The court emphasized that Kenya’s Constitution — under Articles 10, 27, 73 and 232 — demands appointments be based on merit, integrity, and fairness, not assumptions of bias drawn from personal or political affiliations.
No Evidence of Undue Influence
The petitioners also questioned the neutrality of IEBC chairperson Edung Ethekon, citing his previous working relationship with State House Deputy Chief of Staff Josphat Nanok, formerly Turkana governor.
However, the judges ruled that past professional engagement with political figures does not, on its own, prove bias or compromise.
“To disqualify a nominee solely based on prior professional engagement with a political figure, without more, would amount to setting a precedent that unfairly excludes competent and experienced public officers,” the court held.
Importantly, the judges noted that Noor’s professional qualifications and integrity were not in dispute — and that no evidence had been presented to suggest Junet Mohamed had influenced the selection process.
Reasonable Standard for Bias
In reaffirming the constitutional protection of equal opportunity, the court cited the Court of Appeal’s earlier dismissal of bias allegations against former IEBC chair Wafula Chebukati over his past ties to the ODM party.
It restated that the legal test for bias is whether a reasonable and informed observer, aware of all relevant facts, would perceive a real likelihood of partiality — not merely a suspicion.
The court also warned against blanket disqualifications based on associations, saying this would discourage capable professionals and unfairly stigmatize public servants with politically exposed relatives.
Implications for Public Service
The ruling breaks new legal ground by setting a higher threshold for proving bias or nepotism in public appointments.
Legal analysts say it protects the principles of due process and shields public appointments from being derailed by politically motivated challenges.
However, civil society groups caution that the ruling may make it more difficult to interrogate subtle or concealed conflicts of interest.
Still, the judges were clear: without demonstrable proof of misconduct, allegations rooted in perception will not hold in court.
The decision paves the way for the new IEBC leadership to assume office and sets a precedent that could shape the legal terrain for future public appointments across Kenya.
