Mr. Kanjama’s case increases the number of appeals to four, the other complainants are Attorney General Kihara Kariuki, the Independent Electoral and Borders Commission (IEBC) and Attorney Omoke Morara.
Mr. Kanjama intends to appeal to appeal against five findings of the appellate court and at the same time request the confirmation of nine others. Steering Committee was conducted.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeal upheld the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss applications for the Attorney General’s Order to Ensure Publicity to officials who approved the use of BBI public funds to issue refunds.
Basic structure doctrine
The lawyer also appeals against the Feststel The Court of Appeal’s ruling that the basic structure of the constitution can only be changed by a model described as primary constituent power.
It comprises four successive steps, which are civic education, public participation and opinion-gathering, debate in the constituent assembly and finally a referendum are listed.
Mr Kanjama wants the Supreme Court to confirm that the Basic Structure Doctrine is applicable in Kenya.
He also denies the Court of Appeal’s position that civil proceedings are against the President or any person who may take over the functions of the President during their term of office in relation to anything that violates the Constitution or is not done.
Another finding that Mr Kanjama intends to combat , is that the Constitutional Amendment Act of Kenya, 2020, cannot be submitted to a referendum in the absence of evidence for r continuous voter registration by the IEBC.
He is further concerned about the court’s decision to overturn two Supreme Court statements on the BBI.
The first statement was that Article 257 paragraph 1 0) of the Constitution requires that all specific proposed amendments to the Constitution be tabled as separate and separate referendum questions.
The other was that the BBI Steering Committee set up by President Uhuru Kenyatta is an unconstitutional and unlawful entity.
Mr Kanjama wants the Supreme Court to uphold nine of the Court of Appeal’s findings.
This includes a finding that the President has no powers to initiate constitutional amendments .
He asks the Supreme Court to confirm that a constitutional amendment can only be made by Parliament, by a parliamentary initiative (under Article 256) or by a V olksinitiative (under Article 257).
In addition, the attorney requests confirmation that the BBI Steering Committee has no legal capacity to take action to promote constitutional amendments.
Further confirmation from the attorney is that the BBI Act – the Constitution of the Kenya Amendment Bill (2020) – is unconstitutional and an usurpation of the exercise of sovereign power by the people.
He also wants confirmation that the IEBC does the required Quorum proposed for the conduct of its business in relation to the exercise of the referendum in the BBI, including verification of the signatures collected in support of the Law Amendment Act.