Major Blunder By Githu Muigai That Made Kenya Lose The ICJ Case To Somalia

At the time when the Kenya Somalia case was the most active, Kenya’s attorney general by then was Prof Githu Muigai.

To resolve the issue, both Kenya and Somalia were to lay claims before the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) with the two countries signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that they would all respect the CLCS decision.

Thus, the Jubilee government in 2013 together with the government of Somalia released a joint statement that the two countries would work towards demarcating the Indian Ocean area in a bid to arrive at an agreeable solution.

However, Somalia one month later changed and made it clear that it was no longer interested in holding fresh talks on the border issue.

Fast forward, several talks were organised and attended by deputy president William Ruto and officers from the Attorney General’s chamber in 2014 together with Kenya International Boundaries Office (KIBO).

A follow up meeting was then to be held once more after July 2014 but Kenya was not very keen on the same since they were certain that Somalia would give in and discuss the 2009 Mou.

But in August 2014, Somalia maintained that they would discuss nothing with Kenya and resorted to sue Kenya at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Having been sued, Githu Muigai who was the attorney general by then must have made one of the biggest blunders because Somalia put its best shot at the international court while Kenya was still reluctant, waiting for the negotiations from the neighboring country.

The move which would later cook Kenya’s goose was when the government relying on the advice of Attorney general Githu Muigai decided to participate in the ICJ case as opposed to staying away from it.

This meant that the country recognized the jurisdiction of the ICJ and any ruling from it would be binding.

According to the Daily Nation, had Kenya refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ from the beginning, then the decision arrived at on Tuesday would not have been possible, and that it would have compelled Somalia to participate in the negotiations.

The fact that Kenya through A.G Muigai participated during the hearing in the case of Maritime Delimination dispute was a show of commitment from the country to obey whatever the outcome of the court.

The attorney general who is the principal advisor to the government ought to have advised the country not to participate in the case because it would not proceed without hearing from the accused (Kenya). Even such a decision would not be binding because of its unfair nature.

RELATED STORYSomalia’s Selfish Move At ICJ That Almost Left Kenya Landlocked And Poorer



- Advertisement -spot_img

Stay Connected


Must Read

- Advertisement -spot_img

Recent News