Former Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Faith Odhiambo has called for restraint and a careful reading of the Malindi High Court decision that declared August 2026 as the constitutionally correct date for Kenya’s next presidential election.
In a detailed response, Odhiambo said the ruling by Justice Mugure Thande should not trigger alarm or political overreaction, emphasizing that the court’s findings must be understood alongside the remedies it declined to issue.
“The Malindi High Court judgment is not a call for constitutional panic. It is a serious declaration on electoral timelines and it must be read in its entirety,” Odhiambo stated.
Justice Thande ruled that Article 136(2)(a) of the Constitution places the General Election in the fifth year following the last poll, not after a full five-year term.
Based on that interpretation, the court identified August 11, 2026 as the correct election date, counting from the August 9, 2022 General Election.
However, Odhiambo underscored that the court stopped short of ordering the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to immediately conduct elections, citing logistical constraints and the risk of national instability.
“The Court did not order IEBC to conduct an election next week. It declined the mandatory order because it found an immediate poll logistically impossible,” she noted.
She further clarified that the court rejected arguments that the Constitution guarantees a fixed five-year presidential term. Instead, it affirmed that a president serves from the date of swearing-in until a successor is sworn in.
Crucially, Odhiambo pointed out that the court suspended its declaration that the 2027 election timeline is unconstitutional until after the next General Election.
This, she said, was a deliberate move to preserve institutional stability while allowing legal and administrative adjustments.
“A suspended remedy is not an invitation to manufacture a vacuum in government,” she said, adding that the ruling does not strip the president of authority or convert the office into a caretaker role.
She also cautioned against misinterpreting the judgment as immediately binding in terms of enforcement, noting that declaratory orders clarify legal positions but do not compel action unless accompanied by specific directives.
Odhiambo said the decision raises broader constitutional questions, including the synchronization of electoral cycles and the computation of time under the Constitution, which should be addressed through the appellate process.
“The rule of law requires fidelity to both the Court’s reasoning and its actual orders,” she stated.
She urged institutions to pursue a measured legal response, warning against both dismissing the judgment and exaggerating its immediate impact on governance.