The Senior Counsel sought the Court of Appeal President Justice Daniel Musinga’s direction on the respondent’s presentation, arguing that they had not been given ample time to argue their case. She added that they were directly involved in the case and were not amici as purported.
Amici (singular – amicus or amicus curiae) is regarded as a friend of the court, one who assists the court by providing information or advice in matters of law and fact.
Amici are not among the litigants in the case but only as interested or neutral parties.
“My Lords I am here with Muthoni Nyuguto for three respondents. My Lords, we are not here as amici but brought in as respondents by the appellants. We were amici in the superior court (High Court).
“We are sitting here expecting to get our time and a lot of allegations have been made against amici. We have put in all our effort as respondents,” the 2013 Presidential aspirant.
She added that those who dragged them to court were questioning their presence in court and making accusations against them.
“We were dragged here as respondents by the appellants. They refer to us as purported and this is adversarial. “We are here ready to argue our case,” Karua lamented.
“Let the court stamp its authority on this sensitive court issue,” Lawyer Jackson Awele representing Raila Odinga and BBI proponents alongside James Orengo and Oteinde Amollo added.
Musinga directed that the amici-turned-respondents would be given between 10-20 minutes to present their case.
“We would try our best to compress and not to repeat. Nobody has put across our points so far,” Karua appreciated.
The BBI hearing entered day two on Thursday, July 1. The 7-judge bench will listen to more presentations on Friday, July 2 before retreating to consult and issue a ruling on a scheduled day.
BBI proponents hope that the Court of Appeal will overturn the High Court ruling which declared the initiative null and void.