Raila Odinga remembered for landmark court fights on Presidential elections, BBI

In death, as in life, Raila Amolo Odinga leaves behind a legacy defined not only by politics but by his relentless pursuit of justice through the courts.

As the country mourns the passing of its indefatigable reformist, the courtroom stands as a silent witness to his lifelong struggle for fairness, accountability, and constitutional order.

From the bruising presidential petitions that redefined electoral law to the epic BBI judgment that tested the reach of power, Raila’s legal crusades shaped Kenya’s democracy as profoundly as his politics did. 

He may have left the stage, but his voice still lingers, in the precedents he inspired, in the judgments that bore his name, and in a nation forever changed by his belief that justice must never fear power.

In 2013, Raila first took on the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) and then-President-elect Uhuru Kenyatta, claiming that the general election had been marred by irregularities and that the results were neither free nor fair. 

The Supreme Court, led by former Chief Justice Willy Mutunga, dismissed the petition, ruling that “the presidential election was conducted in a free, fair, transparent and credible manner in compliance with the Constitution.” 

Though defeated, Raila accepted the outcome, telling supporters, “I respect the decision of the court, but I do not agree with it.”

It was his first major confrontation with the country’s highest bench, but far from his last.

Four years later, in 2017, the former Prime Minister returned to the Supreme Court, this time in Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2017. 

Once again, he challenged the validity of Uhuru Kenyatta’s victory. 

The court, in a historic decision delivered by Chief Justice David Maraga, stunned the continent.

For the first time in Africa, a presidential election was annulled on grounds of irregularity.

“The greatness of any nation,” Justice Maraga declared, “lies in its fidelity to the Constitution and adherence to the rule of law.” 

The judgment sent shockwaves through Africa's political establishment, and vindicated Raila’s long insistence that elections must not only be free and fair but also seen to be free and fair.

The jubilation was short-lived. The repeat election, held in October 2017, was boycotted by Odinga’s NASA coalition amid claims of continued irregularities. Yet the 2017 judgment had already rewritten Kenya’s electoral history.

It was a legal victory that transformed Raila from a mere petitioner into a symbol of constitutional resilience.

The Judiciary had become, for him, the last frontier of reform, a place where power could be humbled by principle.

Five years later, in 2022, Odinga made what would become his final presidential petition.

Together with his running mate Martha Karua, he filed Petition E005 of 2022 challenging William Ruto’s victory. 

The petition alleged vote manipulation, forged Form 34As, and a compromised tallying process. 

But this time, the court was unconvinced. In a unanimous decision, the seven-judge bench dismissed the petitions, calling the claims “a wild goose chase.”

Chief Justice Martha Koome, reading the judgment, was unsparing in her words: “Some of the documents presented by the petitioners were outright forgeries. The allegations of interference with the results transmission system were no more than hot air.”

The phrasing stung. Many of Raila’s supporters felt the judgment demeaned the seriousness of the issues raised, while others praised the judiciary’s firmness.

Raila responded with restraint: “We have always stood for the rule of law and the Constitution. In this regard, we respect the opinion of the court, although we vehemently disagree with their decision today.”

For him, the courts had never been about theatrics, it was about principle, even when principle ended in loss.

Beyond the electoral petitions, Raila’s imprint on Kenya’s legal landscape was also felt in the monumental Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) case, a project he co-sponsored with then-President Uhuru Kenyatta. 

The initiative sought to amend the Constitution to expand the executive, create new parliamentary seats, and address issues of inclusivity and governance. 

But opponents claimed the President had illegally hijacked a “people-driven” process.

In March 2022, the Supreme Court declared the BBI process unconstitutional.

  “The president’s hand and footprints were evident from the initiation when he established the BBI Taskforce to the moment the Bill was submitted to Parliament. To the extent that he took certain steps to amend the Constitution makes the whole exercise irredeemably flawed," Chief Justice Koome, delivering the majority opinion, ruled.

Justice William Ouko was even more vivid in his metaphor: “The BBI great-grandfather is the handshake between Uhuru and Raila, the grandfather is the BBI Taskforce and the father is the BBI Steering Committee.

The president’s hand is clearly visible; he cannot act as an ordinary citizen and still exercise the powers of the presidency.”

Raila, however, accepted the court’s verdict with characteristic calm.

“I applaud the judgment as a much-desired reiteration of the sovereignty of the people of Kenya,” he said. 

“Every state organ must always subject itself to the people and never usurp their will.” Though the judgment halted a project he had championed, it reinforced the constitutional values he had spent his life defending: separation of powers, people’s sovereignty, and accountability under the law.

Raila’s legal activism also extended beyond politics into matters of public welfare.

In late 2022, he filed a lawsuit in the High Court through his long-time adviser and Lawyer, Paul Mwan,gi, challenging the government’s decision to lift a decade-old ban on genetically modified crops and food imports. 

The High Court later issued temporary orders restraining the government from importing or distributing GMO products until the matter could be fully heard, a small but symbolic victory for the man who never stopped testing the boundaries of executive power.

He passed on before the case, which is currently pending in the Court of Appeal, could be determined.