Cases challenging Adani-Kenyan gov't deal postponed
Wiper Party Leader Kalonzo Musyoka (left) with former Defence Minister Eugene Wamalwa (centre). Photo/Kalonzo Musyoka via X
Wiper Party Leader Kalonzo Musyoka and former Defence Minister Eugene Wamalwa have stated that in as much as they support foreign investors in the country, any private-public-partnership shrouded in secrecy is dangerous.
The two(2) leaders who are also lawyers spoke outside Milimani Law Courts after the two(2) cases challenging the deal between the government and Adani failed to kick off Monday morning. Adani is owned by an Indian investor.
The first case lodged by aviation workers, was postponed to November 27, 2024, while the other, filed by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), was pushed to December 2024.
This is after the parties in the two cases were told that the judge hearing the matter was away.
Mr Musyoka said the matter against the Adani Group takeover of Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) is of critical importance.
He said petitioners are dealing with critical infrastructure that touches on the national security and the well-being of the nation-state called Kenya.
However, the orders that were issued stopping the execution remain in force until the matter is heard and determined.
Mr Musyoka said they are determined to argue the case for petitioners Tony Gachoka, the Wiper Party, DAP-Kenya, and Jubilee Party.
“We are determined to fight over this matter not just for the benefit of the present generation, but for the future generations of this country. We cannot auction the nation. We will return to the Milimani High Court Nairobi on November 27, 2024. The whole country is watching,” said Mr Musyoka.
Mr Wamalwa said he is against any deal that can paralyse the country.
“If Adani take control of JKIA, then they will paralyse our country,” Mr Wamalwa argued.
They were with lawyer David Adoli.
At the same time, preliminary objection was filed in the case challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine the matter. The petitioner wants the deal to be declared unconstitutional because “the process was rushed and the usual processes bypassed”.
