Facts
The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) challenged the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Public Order Act and the legality of directives issued by the National Security Advisory Committee (NSAC) on 7th October 2020, which were later ratified by the Cabinet on 8th October 2020. These directives aimed to regulate public gatherings and processions to curb the spread of COVID-19. The LSK argued that these measures infringed on fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, assembly, and association.
Issue
Whether the directives issued by the NSAC and ratified by the Cabinet were unconstitutional.
Whether Section 5 of the Public Order Act was unconstitutional.
Rule
The constitutionality of laws and directives was evaluated under Articles 10, 19, 20, 21, 24, 27, 29, 32, 33, 34, 36, and 37 of the Constitution of Kenya, which protect fundamental rights and freedoms. The limitations under Article 24 of the Constitution were central to determining whether the directives and laws were justifiable in an open and democratic society.
Analysis
The Court analyzed the directives and the role of NSAC in the context of the Kenyan Constitution.
Legality of NSAC and its Directives:
The Court scrutinized the legal standing of NSAC, which was not established under the Constitution or any statute. NSAC was identified as an administrative body within the Executive, lacking the authority to issue binding directives, especially those affecting the fundamental rights of citizens. The Court found that the directives issued by NSAC, later ratified by the Cabinet, were unconstitutional because they overstepped the constitutional limits by directing the National Police Service on how to perform its duties. This contravened Article 10(2)(a) and Article 245(2)(b) and (4) of the Constitution(Constitutional_Petition…)(Constitutional_Petition…).
Constitutionality of Section 5 of the Public Order Act:
The petitioners argued that Section 5 of the Public Order Act was a colonial relic that unjustifiably restricted the freedoms of assembly, expression, and association. The Court noted that this section had been upheld as constitutional by the Court of Appeal in a previous case. However, Justice Mrima expressed a dissenting view, highlighting that the law was outdated and prone to abuse, as evidenced by its history of suppressing dissenting political views. Nevertheless, the Court was bound by the principle of stare decisis and upheld the constitutionality of Section 5 as determined by the Court of Appeal(Constitutional_Petition…)(Constitutional_Petition…).
Conclusion
The Court ruled that the directives issued by NSAC and ratified by the Cabinet were unconstitutional and void. However, the petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Public Order Act was dismissed, as the Court adhered to the binding precedent from the Court of Appeal.