Former Nyakach MP Odoyo Owidi has publicly challenged former Chief Justice David Maraga’s criticism of Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi’s proposal to hold a constitutional referendum alongside the 2027 General Election.
Owidi’s remarks, shared on X, raise questions about the legal and political basis of Maraga’s statements.
Owidi addressed Maraga directly, noting that Mudavadi was speaking as a private citizen rather than in his official capacity when he suggested constitutional amendments to prevent a potential national crisis.
“It is my understanding that he is proposing this change in his capacity as a private citizen of Kenya, not in his official governmental role,” Owidi stated.
The former legislator also referred to Maraga’s tenure as Chief Justice, highlighting the judiciary’s landmark rulings on constitutional matters.
He recalled the courts’ decision under Maraga that blocked former President Uhuru Kenyatta’s Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) bill, noting that this precedent makes Maraga’s current stance particularly significant.
Owidi further drew attention to past instances where constitutional amendments were successfully championed by Raila Odinga, sometimes while he held no official government office.
He questioned which factors contributed to those successful reforms and whether political consensus, rather than office held, played a critical role.
In addition, Owidi challenged Maraga’s assertion that the office of the Prime Cabinet Secretary is unconstitutional. He pointed out that no formal court petition has been filed to seek a legal declaration on the matter.
“To the best of my knowledge, no formal petition has been brought before the courts to seek a declaration to that effect,” Owidi said, suggesting that Maraga’s statements may carry more political than legal weight.
The exchange comes amid heightened discussions over constitutional reform in Kenya, with Mudavadi proposing a referendum alongside the 2027 elections as a means of averting potential political instability.
His suggestion has drawn both support and criticism from political leaders and legal experts, reflecting the delicate balance between public discourse and judicial interpretation in Kenya’s constitutional framework.