Separation of powers tested as court halts MP Kibagendi House suspension
Kitutu Chache South Member of Parliament Anthony Kibagendi.
The High Court has suspended the National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetang’ula’s decision to indefinitely bar Kitutu Chache South MP Anthony Kibagendi from Parliament, temporarily reinstating him to full duties pending determination of his petition.
In a ruling delivered on Thursday, the court issued orders halting the implementation of the February 17 resolutions that suspended Kibagendi from the House. It also restored the status quo, effectively reinstating him to the full discharge of his duties as a Member of Parliament.
Kibagendi moved to court challenging his suspension by the National Assembly on February 17, 2026. The decision followed remarks he made during a television interview questioning Parliament’s independence and internal processes.
The suspension effectively locked him out of House sittings and committee work, raising the risk of losing his seat under Article 103 of the Constitution if prolonged absence persisted.
In granting conservatory orders, the court held that the doctrine of separation of powers does not shield Parliament from judicial scrutiny. Instead, it requires courts to act and intervene with restraint while still exercising their mandate.
“The doctrine of separation of powers and constitutional independence of branches of government only operates to require that the High Court exercises greater care and apply a higher standard when it is called upon to inquire into the internal operations of the other branches of government,” the court ruled.
It said the Constitution binds all institutions, including Parliament, and no authority is above its reach.
The court stressed that constitutional supremacy remains absolute across the Republic. “The Constitution of Kenya applies in every respect across the entirety of the Republic of Kenya. It is the supreme law of the land, and no person, place or institution that is subject to or under the law of Kenya is above the Constitution or outside its reach,” the court said.
It found that MP Kibagendi’s petition had met and exceeded the legal threshold required at this stage of litigation, establishing a strong prima facie case against the Speaker’s decision.
The respondents, including Parliament, failed to persuade the court that it lacked jurisdiction or that the dispute should be handled through internal mechanisms first.
“Conversely, the respondents have not succeeded in persuading the court that it lacks jurisdiction, or that the doctrines of constitutional avoidance and exhaustion should apply at this interlocutory stage, or that the petitioner applicant has not established a prima facie case,” it stated.
Also Read: Two Kisii MPs clash over Ruto and Matiang'i
The court further found that the balance of convenience, proportionality, and public interest tilted in Mr Kibagendi’s favour. It also noted the risk of prejudice he faced due to the indefinite nature of the suspension.
“The applicant has shown to the required standard that the balance of convenience, weight of prejudice, proportionality and public interest all tilt in his favour. Critically, the possible peril faced by the applicant pursuant to Article 103, Clause 1, paragraph B,” the court said
Crucially, the court was concerned that the suspension could trigger constitutional consequences affecting his seat.
It said the indefinite suspension and admissions by parliamentary authorities pointed to only one outcome at this stage of the case, granting the application.
Consequently, Parliament was restrained from taking any adverse action against him on matters related to the petition.
The court directed that the main petition be heard on a priority basis.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.
