Kenyans can breathe a sigh of relief after the High Court issued orders suspending the new charges for National Identification Cards (IDs), passports and other immigration documents as gazetted by the Interior Ministry.

High Court Justice Lawrence Mugambi issued the orders stopping the implementation of the newly revised charges, following a petition by Nakuru-based surgeon Dr Magare Gikenyi.

"A conservatory order is hereby issued suspending Gazette Notices No. 15239-15249 dated November 6, 2023, and any other document purporting to give authority to increase or review the charges, fees and levies specified therein pending the hearing and determination of the application inter-partes,” the order stated. 

In his petition, Gikenyi argued that the new charges were out of reach of many Kenyans’ pockets while urging the court to certify the matter as urgent.

The Nakuru doctor has sued Interior Cabinet Secretary Kithure Kindiki, his Treasury counterpart Njuguna Ndungu, the National Assembly, and the Attorney General. 

Justice Mugambi has directed that the three be served within three days, and responses be filed and served within a week.

The case will be mentioned on November 29, 2023.

Gikenyi had sought the court's relief after Interior CS Kindiki announced that the issuance of new ID cards would no longer be free. 

The government had ordered that those applying for ID cards for the first time be charged Sh1000 while Kenyans seeking replacement for lost cards pay Sh2000. By Mate Tongola, The Standard

 National Assembly has approved all 27 President Ruto’s nominees for ambassadors and heads of missions after vetting.

MPs nod now set the ball rolling for their appointment before being dispatched to the different designated envoys.

The Departmental Committee on Defence, Intelligence and Foreign Relations tabled the report on their suitability for the job following the conclusion on vetting of ambassadorial nominees.

Belgut MP Nelson Koech who chairs the committee while moving the motion for ambassadorial nominee approval mentioned they had received memorandum from one Karanja Mutindi contesting the approval of the 27 nominees.

Mutindi argued that the SRC had not set remuneration and benefit payable to the persons holding the office of the High Commissioner, Ambassador and Diplomatic Consular representatives hence opposing their approval.

He further asserted in the absence of the remuneration and benefit, any recommendation for appointment will violate the Constitution.

“However, the committee observed that the memorandum addresses a totally different matter that touches on the mandate of the SRC and is not in any way addressing the fundamental role of the National Assembly of conducting approval hearings,” Koech said.

The Belgut MP had also received a memo to oppose nomination of George Macgoye to Djibouti who was mentioned in a matter involving a large irregular payment of legal fees by Kenya Maritime Authority.

The Defence and Foreign relation observed that Macgoye was under investigation by EACC which by law has no power to declare anyone guilty.

“It is important to advise the EACC that as much they have a constitutional mandate to investigate matters touching on corruption, it is not wise to write letters and say “so and so has been mentioned on a matter that we are investigating,” said Ichungwah.

The list of nominees who have been approved will fill ambassadorial roles in South Africa, India, Rwanda, Botswana, Malaysia, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, among others.

The Defence Committee interrogated the nominees on their academic qualifications and professional competence for the job, as well as their individual knowledge of the different destinations they have been nominated to for appointment.

The Committee also ascertained the nominees clearance by the relevant institutions; including the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), the Higher Education Loans Board (Helb) and Office of the Registrar of Political Parties.

Members sought to know from the nominees any public offices they had previously held and also asked them to declare their wealth and net worth, including deferred income and outside commitments and tax status. By Irene Mwangi, Capital News

Rishi Sunak’s government will discover next Wednesday whether its flagship immigration policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful.

The supreme court is set to give its judgment after the Home Office challenged a court of appeal ruling that the multimillion-pound deal to send deported asylum seekers to the east African nation was unlawful. 

If the decision goes against the government, Sunak is expected to come under intense pressure from the right of his party to promise to leave the European convention on human rights [ECHR].

Suella Braverman, the home secretary, is believed be in favour of placing a pledge to leave the ECHR at the centre of a general election campaign if the judgment goes against the Home Office.

If the policy is deemed lawful, the Home Office believes that flights could take off for Kigali early next year.

Five justices at the UK’s highest court are now to give their decision on the challenge on Wednesday, the court has said.

Related: ‘Incoherence and inconsistency’: the inside story of the Rwanda deportation plan

Government lawyers have argued that the court of appeal was wrong to conclude that removal to Rwanda would breach article 3 of the European convention on human rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.

However, Raza Husain KC, for several of the asylum seekers at risk of deportation to Rwanda, later described the country’s asylum system as “woefully deficient … marked by acute unfairness and arbitrariness”.

The UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, intervened in the supreme court hearing, with its barrister Angus McCullough KC telling the court the assurances were “no sufficient answer” to “basic and fundamental defects” in the Rwandan system.

The ruling by Lords Reed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Sales will be handed down on Wednesday after 10am.

The policy of sending tens of thousands of asylum seekers to the east African country where their claims would be processed was first announced by the then prime minister Boris Johnson in April 2022. 

It was devised amid growing numbers of refugees travelling across the Channel by small boat to claim asylum in the UK. Ministers believe that flights taking asylum seekers to Rwanda will act as a deterrent.

At least £140m has so far been paid to the authoritarian regime of President Paul Kagame, and the money has been spent. Despite the introduction of the illegal migration bill, no deportation flights have taken place amid a series of legal challenges.

Sunak has set stopping small boats of asylum seekers from arriving in Britain as one of his five pledges to the electorate.

But since the year started, almost 26,700 migrants have arrived via the Channel, according to UK government figures from earlier this month. By Rajeev Syal Home affairs editor, Guardian