NAIROBI, Kenya, Aug 8 – The former Law Society of Kenya (LSK) president Faith Odhiambo has urged Kenyans to approach the Malindi High Court judgment on the 2026 presidential election timeline with calm, saying the ruling should not be interpreted as triggering a constitutional crisis or an immediate change of government.
Odhiambo said the judgment was a serious interpretation of constitutional provisions on electoral timelines but stressed that the court’s actual orders must be distinguished from its findings.
Odhiambo said the court held that Article 136(2)(a), which provides for a presidential election on the second Tuesday of August “in every fifth year”, means the election should be held in the fifth year and not after it.
Based on the court’s computation under Article 259(5)(c), she said, the date in question was August 11, 2026.
However, Odhiambo noted that the court did not order the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to hold an election immediately, despite its finding on the constitutional timeline.
She said the court declined to issue a mandatory order after finding that an immediate election was logistically impossible and could result in national instability.
“More importantly, the Court suspended the declaration of invalidity until after the next general election, expressly so that IEBC may correct the defect,” Odhiambo said.
She argued that the suspended remedy should not be interpreted as creating a vacuum in government or removing the President from office.
“A suspended remedy is not an invitation to manufacture a vacuum in government,” she said.
Odhiambo further said the judgment did not convert the presidency into a caretaker arrangement or restrict the exercise of presidential powers.
She pointed to Article 142, saying it provides for continuity by stipulating that the President remains in office until the next President is sworn in.
“The constitutional order does not collapse merely because a court identifies a contested interpretation of an election timeline,” she said.
Odhiambo also cautioned against treating the court’s declaration as equivalent to a mandatory order, noting that the judgment itself distinguished between declaratory relief and orders compelling a particular action.
“A declaration is not a mandatory order in disguise,” she said.
The former LSK boss said the ruling nevertheless raises significant constitutional questions concerning fixed election dates, computation of constitutional timelines and the terms of Parliament and county governments.
She said the issues should be subjected to a calm and principled appellate process, rather than partisan political interpretations.
According to Odhiambo, the judgment should be neither dismissed as irrelevant nor exaggerated as having already displaced Kenya’s constitutional government.
“The rule of law requires fidelity to both the Court’s reasoning and its actual orders,” she said.
She maintained that elections must not be left to political convenience, but cautioned that constitutional remedies should equally not be administered in a way that creates avoidable instability.
“The Constitution is not self-destructive but designed to secure both accountability and continuity,” she said.
Odhiambo called for an urgent and institutionally responsible legal response to the judgment, noting that the ruling remains subject to appeal.
She said until the decision is varied, stayed or overturned, it should be understood within the context of the remedies granted by the court, the limitations it imposed and the appellate mechanisms provided under the law.