MP Kamket loses bid to halt creation of Suguta sub-county in Baringo
Tiaty MP William Kamket.
Tiaty MP William Kamket has lost his bid in court to suspend the government's decision to create Suguta sub-County in Baringo and designating Kapedo its headquarters until his case against the move is determined.
Mr Kamket wanted the court to temporarily stop the implementation of a gazette notice issued by the Ministry of Interior announcing creation of the sub-county within Tiaty Constituency and its headquarters in Kapedo. The notice is dated March 17, 2022.
But Justice Racheal Ng’etich dismissed the application, stating that though Mr Kamket had demonstrated that he had a strong case there was no real danger or prejudice that may be occasioned if conservatory orders were not issued.
“The petitioner has not demonstrated that the creation of its headquarters in Kapedo town has caused unrest and conflict nor any prejudice may be occasioned during the pendency of this petition,” said the judge.
His application was opposed by the Turkana County Government and its two local leaders, who stated that contrary to Mr Kamket’s claim the area was and has always been within Turkana County.
They took the view that the creation of Suguta Sub-County with Kapedo as the headquarters has already helped the residents of the region to access government services, hence it is an act that has led to realisation of the rights under the constitution for the people of the affected area. They said granting of orders against the creation of the administrative unit would be clawing back on the realisation of these rights.
Mr Kamket argued that Kapedo was a disputed area and border town of Tiaty Constituency that is prone to violence, and it is claimed by residents of Turkana and Baringo counties. Therefore, designating it as sub-county headquarters created distress, unnecessary tension and conflict within the area.
Regarding Mr Kamket’s claim that the local residents were not involved before the creation of Suguta sub-county with its headquarters in Kapedo, the judge took note of an argument by the Attorney-General and the Interior Ministry that the new administrative unit would take government services closer to the people.
Mr Kamket’s case was backed by local MCAs led by Lourien Limo Sam, Clement Lomaring'oria and Daniel Tuwit Loreria, who filed affidavits in support of the petition as interested parties. They argued that the said Gazette Notice seeks to resolve the boundary dispute by relocating the polling stations within Tirioko, Silale, and Ripkwo Wards in Tiaty Constituency to Turkana East Constituency
“Besides arguing that the issue was not subjected to public participation, the applicant argues that a constituency has been created through back door and the polling stations have been relocated to Turkana, which is denied by the respondents (Attorney-General and Ministry of Interior) and will therefore be an argument in the main petition,” said the judge.
In respect to public participation, the government argued that under Section 14 of The National Government Co-Ordination Act, the minister does not need to subject their decisions to public participation. “Considering the fact that creation of administrative units closer to the people comes with the benefit of government services closer to the people, I am of the view that public interest tilts in favour of not granting conservatory orders,” said the judge.
The County Government of Turkana and its local leaders led by Nixon Nkor Nkolong and Willy Naalimo opposed the petition.
In his petition, MP Kamket argues that the establishment of Kapedo as the Suguta sub-county headquarters effectively reviews, reorganises and recreates the existing boundary of Tiaty constituency, thereby resolving a boundary dispute through the back door.
He claims that the implication is that a constituency has been created by adjusting the existing polling stations.
Together with the MCAs, he argued that altering the boundaries of the Tirioko, Silale and Ripkwo wards in Tiaty Constituency is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Interior but the responsibility of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) as set out in Article 89 of the Constitution.
However, the government claims that its decision to establish a new administrative unit was based on current population statistics and proximity to national government services.
The ministry claims that it neither reviewed the names nor the boundaries of constituencies or wards.