A Kenyan court rejected lawyers who wanted to charge President William Ruto with contempt of court. The High Court said officials must have a chance to defend themselves before facing contempt charges. Three judges made this decision on Tuesday about disputed election commission appointments. The court emphasized that fair hearings come before any punishment. Officials cannot face contempt charges without proper legal procedures.
Lawyers accused Ruto of breaking a court order about election officials. Justice Lawrence Mugambi had stopped the government from officially naming new election commissioners. The petitioners wanted the court to punish Ruto and other government workers immediately. They argued that officials knew about the court order and should face consequences. Lawyer Paul Muite told judges that breaking court orders requires punishment.
Government lawyers fought back against the contempt claims. They said no one had properly served them with legal papers about the contempt charges. Counsel Mbita argued that the application lacked legal foundation and violated fair hearing rules. He accused the other side of trying to add new claims after arguments had started. The government team said the court should focus on the main case instead.
Another lawyer called the contempt claims legally flawed. Kipkogei said contempt charges must name specific people and provide supporting facts. He argued that the petitioners had not followed proper legal procedures for contempt applications. The lawyer asked judges to ignore the oral request and continue with the original petition. The court agreed that due process must be followed in all contempt cases.
Lawyers accused Ruto of breaking a court order about election officials. Justice Lawrence Mugambi had stopped the government from officially naming new election commissioners. The petitioners wanted the court to punish Ruto and other government workers immediately. They argued that officials knew about the court order and should face consequences. Lawyer Paul Muite told judges that breaking court orders requires punishment.
Government lawyers fought back against the contempt claims. They said no one had properly served them with legal papers about the contempt charges. Counsel Mbita argued that the application lacked legal foundation and violated fair hearing rules. He accused the other side of trying to add new claims after arguments had started. The government team said the court should focus on the main case instead.
Another lawyer called the contempt claims legally flawed. Kipkogei said contempt charges must name specific people and provide supporting facts. He argued that the petitioners had not followed proper legal procedures for contempt applications. The lawyer asked judges to ignore the oral request and continue with the original petition. The court agreed that due process must be followed in all contempt cases.
