By Jacktone Ambuka

Mutunga led Supreme Court of Kenya summoned LSK chair Mr. Eric Mutua over a very democratic utterance he made during the presidential election petition between Raila Odinga and president Uhuru Kenyatta. "The LSK chairman was quoted as saying that the decision to reject an 839-page affidavit from Mr Odinga could set a bad precedent for future rulings."

The LSK chair discussed a concern that most Kenyans had on their mind. Truth be told, a court worth it's salt cannot and should not dismiss evidence presented without cross examining it and testing it's validity. That's a standard protocol world over.

Although it is against the law to discuss specificity and merits of the case that is being tried, LSK chair didn't discuss the witnesses, evidence or documents in the case. He simply expressed a general concern that doesn't meet the threshold of discussing merits of a case under trial.

Beside, the constitution also guarantees citizen's with freedom of speech and expression. That's why a sound interpretation of the law must be done conjunctively not disjunctively.

Sadly, it seems Supreme court is suffering from selective amnesia. They interpret the law disjunctively based on their prejudicial and preconceived notions. That to me is an act of intimidation that must be rejected. Being the court of the last resort, Supreme Court must maintain professionalism, sound interpretation of the law and must allow justice to be "our shield and defender." What say you?