Attorney General Dorcas Odour fights to keep Raila Odinga's AU bid spending secret
Attorney General Dorcas Oduor wants a petition filed by a city lawyer seeking information on Kenya’s expenditure for ODM leader Raila Odinga’s failed African Union Commission chairmanship bid dismissed.
In an objection filed at the High Court, Ms Oduor faulted lawyer Lempaa Suyianka for moving to court before exhausting available dispute resolution mechanisms.
According to the AG, Mr Suyianka should have first written to the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) to seek the information.
Lawyer Suyianka said he went to court after failing to receive any response from the government or the commission.
Through Deputy Chief State Counsel S. O. Kumba, AG further argued that the nature of the information sought is protected under Section 6(1) and (2) of the Access to Information Act, as it pertains to foreign relations, information from foreign governments with national security implications and Cabinet deliberations and records.
“The Attorney-General submits that the Petitioner (Mr Suyianka) has not demonstrated that the exceptional circumstances exist. In the entire text of the Petition, there is no allegation that the Petitioner was blocked from invoking the alternative administrative mechanism for complaint redress. To the contrary, the complaint was acknowledged and was pending consideration,” said Mr Kumba.
He added that under Section 14(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act, CAJ is mandated to review decisions of public entities alleged to have denied access to information.
“Therefore, it was in bad taste amounting to an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court for the Petitioner to have rushed to file the instant Petition, despite the pendency of the complaint before the 2nd Respondent (CAJ),” Mr Kumba said.
AG's stance: secrecy and procedure
Mr Suyianka said he wrote to the Ministry of Foreign and Diaspora Affairs on September 9, 2024, seeking the information, but received no response or acknowledgement.
He added that on November 28, 2024, he wrote to CAJ informing the commission that the ministry had declined to furnish him with the requested information.
The lawyer argued that Mr Odinga’s AU Commission chairmanship bid, which collapsed on February 15, 2025, was planned and financed in secrecy.
He is seeking information on when the government decided to support Mr Odinga’s candidacy.
“It is clear that the preliminary objection is peremptory, vexations, scandalous and an abuse of court process and meant to deny Kenyans and the Petitioners crucial information about the expenditure of their money in a campaign spearhead,” Mr Suyianka said.
He wants the court to declare that spending public resources on Mr Odinga’s bid was a violation of Article 201(a) and (d) of the Constitution.
He also faulted what he described as a secretive recruitment of people to run the campaign across the continent using unbudgeted resources not approved by Parliament.
“Our submission is that so far, no Kenyans other than the first respondent and the first interested party (Mr Odinga) know how much was spent on this fiasco. Anyone who speculates is arrested and questioned by police,” he said.