Media and public locked out of Safaricom, Airtel case

Lawyer Evans Monari (centre) is seen leaving the Milimani Law Courts. He attended the hearing of Steven Kay's case against Safaricom, Airtel July 30, 2013. PAUL JUMA
 

Justice Isaac Lenaola during a past hearing. The media and the public have been ordered to leave court as proceedings in a case filed by President Kenyatta's lawyer against two mobile firms began July 30, 2013. FILE  NATION MEDIA GROUP

By PAUL JUMA
Posted  Tuesday, July 30   2013 at  09:56

The media and the public have been ordered to leave court as proceedings in a case filed by President Kenyatta's lawyer against two mobile firms began Tuesday.

High Court judge Isaac Lenaola made the order before President Kenyatta's lawyer Steven Kay started his submissions.

Lawyer Evans Monari attended the hearing.

Mr Kay has filed "confidential" lawsuits against Safaricom and Airtel, the two leading mobile telephone service providers in the country.

In the case, Mr Kay, a Queens Counsel who is part of Mr Kenyatta’s defence team at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is seeking access to unspecified information from the two companies.

The first case against Safaricom was filed at the High Court on Friday before Justice David Majanja and the second against Airtel was filed Monday before Justice Lenaola.

President Kenyatta and his deputy, Mr William Ruto, are set to stand trial at the ICC later this year. They face crimes against humanity charges stemming from the 2007/8 post-election violence. Also on trial is former radio journalist Joshua arap Sang.

It has been difficult to find out what Mr Kay wants from Safaricom and Airtel because of the veil of secrecy placed around the case.

The original applications are for the cases to be heard in secret.

In the application, Mr Kay sought the following orders from the court: “That the court do make orders for the confidential filing and hearing of the intended constitutional petition to be filed by the petitioner; that the court makes orders for the confidential filing of any application in relation to the said petition; that access to the intended petition and any application to be restricted to the parties to the petition.”

In the petition, Mr Kay seeks “protection of the petitioner’s rights under the Constitution; orders for information; and such other orders as the court may deem fit.”