The High Court has rejected the National Assembly Speaker’s attempt to leave a case seeking to split Bobasi Constituency ahead of the 2027 General Election to address "unequitable" representation in Parliament.
This is even though the electoral commission has already announced that there would be no substantive boundary delimitation before the 2027 election.
Justice Lawrence Mugambi ruled that the Speaker may remain a respondent because Parliament has a constitutional oversight role over the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC).
He said that although the IEBC has the direct constitutional mandate to delimit constituencies and wards, the National Assembly has an oversight responsibility over independent commissions and may require the IEBC to submit reports on specific issues.
Justice Lawrence Mugambi.
Photo credit: Wilfred Nyangaresi | Nation Media Group
“The second respondent (National Assembly Speaker) does not play a direct role in respect delimitation but it has role in ensuring accountability in regard to an Independent Commission such as first respondent (IEBC),” the court said, keeping Parliament in the dispute over electoral boundaries.
The case was filed by Frankline Otieno Mokaya, who wants Bobasi divided into Bobasi Borabu and Bobasi Chache to address what he says is unequal representation.
The petition describes Bobasi as densely populated and covering Nyamache and Sameta sub-counties, and alleges that it had been left intact despite neighbouring constituencies being split in 2012.
It listed IEBC, the Speakers of the National Assembly and Senate, the Attorney-General and Kisii senator Richard Onyonka a the respondents.
The petition seeks a declaration that residents’ rights under Article 89, which provides for the review of constituency names and boundaries every eight to 12 years and the periodic review of ward boundaries, have been infringed.
It also seeks an order compelling IEBC to undertake the proposed delimitation. The petition asks the court to determine whether there had been both a failure by the IEBC to undertake its constitutional boundary-review function and a corresponding failure by Parliament to exercise its oversight role.
This is not the first push to split Bobasi, with earlier boundary-review proposals seeking its division followed by 2012 court litigation over the delimitation process, amid arguments about population, geographical factors and equitable political representation.
Parliament's limited role
Speaker Moses Wetang'ula, through National Assembly Clerk, asked the court to strike him from the case, arguing that IEBC alone has the constitutional mandate to delimit constituencies and wards.
The application said Parliament’s role was limited to receiving IEBC’s report and considering it through the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. It also argued that no specific allegation had been made against the Speaker.
The petitioner opposed the application, saying removing the Speaker would undermine constitutional accountability because Parliament exercises oversight over independent commissions.
The court agreed that IEBC has the direct responsibility for boundary delimitation under Article 88(4)(c) of the Constitution.
Article 89(2) requires IEBC to review constituency names and boundaries every eight to 12 years, with each review completed at least 12 months before a general election.
“Nevertheless, the Speaker of the National Assembly's oversight responsibility over any Independent Commission such IEBC is spelt under Article 254 the Constitution,” the court said.
The court said that role could become relevant if evidence showed systemic failure by IEBC to perform its constitutional duty.
“If there is systemic failure on the part of the IEBC to undertake constitutional responsibility and a corresponding omission on the part of the body that is empowered to ensure accountability in performance of the specific constitutional duty, the Petitioner cannot be faulted for maintaining a suit against the two bodies,” Justice Mugambi ruled.
The court also rejected the argument that the Speaker should leave because no relief had been specifically sought against the office.
“In constitutional litigation, the court is not limited by the pleadings of the parties or reliefs sought,” it said, dismissing the application as “devoid of merits”.
The dispute comes as IEBC has said it will not conduct substantive constituency and ward boundary changes before the 2027 General Election.
In January 2026, IEBC adopted a phased approach, citing constitutional timelines, legal constraints, resources and the need for extensive public participation.
It said a full delimitation exercise would follow the 2027 election and estimated its cost at Sh8.49 billion.
IEBC said it would undertake policy work, geographical data validation and stakeholder engagement before the election, while avoiding disruptive boundary changes within the final 12 months.
The petitioner argues that Bobasi had been omitted during the 2013 boundary exercise while neighbouring Bomachoge and Kitutu Chache were split.
The petition places a local representation grievance before the court amid the delayed national boundary review.
The central question remains whether IEBC failed to meet its constitutional duty in relation to Bobasi.
Justice Mugambi said whether the alleged failure would ultimately be proved must await determination of the petition on its merits.
