The no nonsense interior CS Dr Fred Matiang’i declared an Ethiopian businessman a prohibited immigrant, but will the man adhere to Matiangi’s order? The Businessman has gone back to court seeking to reverse the decision!
Mr Abdulahi Said Salad lost the application seeking to quash the decision in December last year, but he has filed another petition for review of Justice John Mativo’s ruling.
Through advocate Esther Mwikali, Mr Salad is seeking a review of the order saying that the judge mistakenly sanctioned Dr Matiang’is illegal decision, declaring him a prohibited immigrant.
Mr Salad was also placed on immigration watch-list and directed his deportation.
He wants the court to stop implementation of the order and allow him to travel to India for treatment as well as permit his entry on his return.
Justice Mativo dismissed the case in December after he failed to include the Attorney-General (AG) as a principal respondent in the case.
“I find glaring omissions and gaps in the ex-parte applicant’s case which raises more questions than answers on the veracity of the version he presented,” Justice Mativo said.
Justice Mativo said the court cannot completely ignore the state’s legitimate interest in the security of its borders and the integrity of its immigration systems which it achieves by regulating the admission of foreign nationals to reside and work in Kenya.
The court, the judge ruled, cannot make an order in total disregard of the Mr Matiangi’s powers and duties unless it is demonstrated beyond doubt that he acted outside his mandate.
Justice Mativo said the Constitution states that the AG is the principal legal adviser to the government and he shall represent the national government in court or in any other legal proceedings to which the national government is a party to, other than criminal proceedings.
The Judge said litigation on behalf of the national government is one of the AG’s primary duties under the Constitution in all cases where the government is directly interested.
“The omission also casts doubts on the competence of these proceedings against the government and whether under the above provisions, a government ministry is a juristic person,” Justice Mativo said.