Why court says party hopping after election is illegal

The High Court has warned elected politicians of severe consequences for defecting from the party that sponsored them.

While the court declined to rule that Isiolo Governor Abdi Guyo and his deputy James Lowasa had left Jubilee Party to join UDA in 2023, citing insufficient evidence, it held that once elected on a party ticket, a politician remains bound to that party for the full term.

Justices Jairus Ngaah, John Chigiti and Lawrence Mugambi said it is selfish and against multi-party democracy for politicians to use a party as a stepping stone for elective office, only to abandon it for another.

According to the court, the law is fashioned in a such a way that political parties can form coalitions or mergers for collaborations but asserted that it would amount to lying to the citizens if an elected leader keeps shifting allegiance from one party to another. 

In their ruling yesterday, the judges said political parties are formed on ideologies and their promises to the people, through which they gain power. They added that it is wrong to treat parties merely as a vehicle for winning an elective seat, only to abandon them for greener pastures without involving the electorate or the party that granted the ticket.

“It would be a serious deception to the electorate if party hopping were allowed. What then becomes of accountability and public participation? Haphazard defections would weaken the country’s multi-party democratic system. What reason is there for such reckless hopping when systems for collaboration, like coalition agreements and mergers, already exist?” posed Justice Mugambi, reading the judgment on behalf of Justices Chigiti and Ngaah.

In a unanimous ruling, the trio noted they had the authority to determine the case filed by Ali Guracha, as it did not involve a dispute between a political party and its member.
“This is not a proper ground on which this petition can be determined. We say so because the respondents have admitted that the petitioners are not bona fide members of a political party,” said Justice Mugambi.

The judges also considered whether the case should be struck out, noting that the law does not list it among the ways to remove a governor from office. They found that the petition made no prayers for the removal of Governor Guyo or his deputy.

The trio added that if the court had agreed with Guracha’s claim that the two had subverted the Constitution, it would have been up to the County Assembly to decide on their removal.

Ultimately, the judges said the central issue was whether a governor or deputy governor’s decision to defect from one party to another amounted to resignation.

The judges asserted that political parties are not mere vehicles for elections, after which one can move freely from one to another. They said that once a candidate chooses a party to contest under, they are bound to remain with it for the full term.

They added that party hopping without the involvement of the party is selfish and a display of political indiscipline.

“Political discipline is obligatory. Given the legal framework, there is no room for indiscriminate defection in our political governance,” said Justice Mugambi.The court also examined whether Governor Guyo and his deputy had actually defected from Jubilee Party to UDA.

Lawyer Kibe Mungai appearing for Guracha argued that President William Ruto’s party, UDA, had breached the law by allowing members of Azimio to cross over without seeking re-election.He claimed that despite being sued, UDA failed to respond or defend its actions.

“For political party discipline, the court must act decisively as a lesson to other parties,” he said. Guyo and Lowasa’s lawyer, Eric Theuri, opposed the case, denying that his clients had crossed over from Jubilee to UDA. “Our clients have not joined another political party, as confirmed by the Registrar of Political Parties. This court cannot entertain an abstract question against our clients,” Theuri said