Barasa argues that at the time of the court’s ruling, Speaker Wetang’ula had relied on coalition agreements that were disputed by their very authors, some of whom claimed they were fraudulent. Furthermore, he pointed out that certain parties initially in Azimio had already notified the Registrar of Political Parties of their intention to exit—a process requiring 60 days—but their letters of withdrawal should have been sufficient proof of their departure.
“The court failed to consider that these parties had effectively severed ties with Azimio and had since entered into fresh agreements with Kenya Kwanza,” Barasa stated. He emphasized that Kenya Kwanza’s majority in the National Assembly is now undeniable and should be formally recognized.
To address what he sees as a flawed ruling, Barasa is urging Speaker Wetang’ula to issue a fresh determination that reflects the current political landscape and the new coalition agreements that were not in place at the time of the initial ruling. “Speaker Wetang’ula has the authority to correct this situation by basing his ruling on the current facts, not outdated agreements that no longer hold,” he said.
This debate over the National Assembly’s majority has been a point of contention since the 2022 elections, with both Azimio and Kenya Kwanza claiming dominance in the House. The ongoing shifts in coalition alliances continue to fuel legal and political disputes over parliamentary control.
Barasa remains adamant that a fresh ruling will reaffirm Kenya Kwanza’s majority, reinforcing its ability to push forward its legislative agenda without opposition contestation.
The matter is likely to spark further discussions within both political camps, with legal experts weighing in on the constitutional implications of altering a ruling based on shifting political affiliations. However, Barasa insists that correcting what he perceives as a judicial misstep is necessary to uphold the will of the people as reflected in the current alignment of parties within Parliament.
