President William Ruto has re-gazetted the appointment of Erastus Ethekon as the new Chairperson of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), alongside six commissioners.
The Head of State, in a gazette notice dated Thursday, July 10, appointed Ethekon to a non-renewable six-year term in accordance with the IEBC Act.
"In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 250 (2) as read with Section 5 (2) of the IEBC Act, I, William Samoei Ruto, President of the Republic of Kenya and Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Forces, appoint Erastus Endung Ethekon to be the Chairperson of IEBC for six years," read part of the notice.
Others appointed to the Commission alongside Ethekon include Ann Njeri Nderitu, Moses Mukhwana, Mary Sorobit, Hassan Noor, Francis Odhiambo, and Fahima Abdallah.
The President's decision to re-gazette Ethekon's appointment came just hours after the High Court declared Ruto's initial gazette notice null and void, stating that it had been published in violation of the law.
In a ruling delivered on Thursday evening by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Roselyne Aburili, John Chigiti, and Bahati Mwamuye, the court noted that the original notice had breached conservatory orders issued on May 29.
In the conservatory orders issued on May 29 this year, the court barred the government from gazetting the appointments pending the hearing and determination of a petition challenging the recruitment process.
"The gazette notices issued by the President to formalise the appointments were unlawful as they had been published in violation of a valid and subsisting conservatory order,” the judges ruled.
“The President is, therefore, required to issue a fresh gazette notice to regularise the appointments in compliance with the court’s judgment,” they directed.
However, in the same ruling, the judges dismissed a petition challenging the legality of Ethekon's and the other commissioners' appointments.
According to the court, the petition lacked merit, and the arguments presented by the petitioners did not meet the threshold required to nullify the appointments to the Commission.
The petitioners had challenged the President’s appointments on several grounds, including lack of diversity, favouritism, and failure to appoint a person with a disability.
