The High Court sitting in Nairobi has thrown out the lawsuit by seeking a referendum to enable the Luos community to secede from Kenya and form its own country over alleged discrimination by the Kenyan government.
In a brief ruling, Justice Lawrence Mugambi of Milimani High Court rejected the case filed by Ojijo Mark Pascal on behalf of 10,000 Luos on grounds that it was wrongly filed.
While dismissing the case, Justice Mugambi said the petitioner Ojijo failed to comply with the procedures provided for filing constitutional petitions under the Constitution.
“I have read the notice of motion together with the certificate of urgency and note this suit is commenced by way of a Plaint rather than a constitutional Petition and is therefore struck out forthwith,” Mugambi ruled.
He advised the petitioner to comply with the legal procedures of lodging cases in court.
Ojijo moved to Milimani Law Courts seeking orders to have Luos allowed to form their own independent state and govern themselves.
In the suit papers, Ojijo who identifies himself as a presidential candidate and a Luo by ethnicity argued that secession is not a crime in Kenya and it is time Luos charted their own course as a people who believe in change.
“That the court orders the respondent (the Attorney General) to cause a referendum to be held for Luos to leave the state of Kenya and become their own state,” one of the orders read in part.
Through Ojijo, the over 10,000 petitioners seek a referendum on various grounds including that the Attorney General (the respondent) has shown consistent acts of discrimination, profiling, harassment, torture and oppression of the Luos.
He claimed that the government has repeatedly, and consistently applied excessive force on Luos during demonstrations.
Further, the Petitioner stated that the State has also used the law and media to paint Luos as evil, against development and violent.
The court was informed that government regimes; current and the past, have perpetuated a culture of impunity through allegedly rigged elections that deny Luos the ability to lead and grow economically.
Ojijo had argued that the Luos should be allowed self-determination since it’s their constitutional right.
He states that people have a right to decide their own fate in matters of politics, territory, and livelihood and thus have a right to self-determination.
“The right to self-determination consists of Luo rights to freely pursue their economic, social and economic development, ideally through democratic governance,” he stated.
They had further sought orders barring the state from interfering with their plans to practice self-determination activities.
