allege that High Court barred the CKRC, its Chairperson and a national forum yet to be constituted
known as the National Constitutional Conference from discussing or making any suggestions in
relation to any provisions touching upon the Judiciary.
th
11. On 30 September 2002 the CKRC published its Bill of the Constitution of Kenya in terms of the
Review Act and further issued a notice that the National Constitutional Conference would be held in
early November 2002.
12. The Complainants allege that the existence of the suit by the Judges and the staying orders
granted by the High Court of Kenya pose an effective and immediate threat to the denial of a new
constitutional review process which will result in the denial of a new constitution that protects all
human rights to which all Kenyans are entitled under the African Charter and these rights have been
proposed to be guaranteed in the new Constitution of Kenya.
13. The Complainants allege that the following Articles of the African Charter have been
violated: Articles 1, 7(1) (a), 9(2) and46 of the African Charter.
14. The communication was sent by DHL and was received at the Secretariat of the African
th
Commission on 18 October 2002.
rd
15. At its 33 Ordinary Session, the African Commission considered the communication and decided
to postpone its decision on seizure pending receipt of the following information from the Complainants
-:
Status of the work of the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission (CKRC) bearing in mind
the major developments that had taken place in relation to constitutional review process in
Kenya;
Whether or not the Complainants cannot challenge the staying orders granted by the High
Court before a court of superior jurisdiction in Kenya because from the facts presented on the
file, it is evident that the matter is still before the High Court of Kenya.
th
16. On 29 August 2003, a letter was sent to the Complainants reminding them to provide the
information requested for by the African Commission.
th
17. On 4 November 2003, the Complainants transmitted a written response to the additional
information requested for by the African Commission.
th
th
th
18. During the 34 Ordinary Session held from 6 to 20 November 2003 in Banjul, The Gambia, the
Complainants made oral submissions urging the African Commission to be seized with the matter. The
African Commission considered the complaint and decided to be seized thereof.
th
19. On 4 December 2003, the Secretariat wrote informing the parties to the communication that the
African Commission had been seized with the matter and requested them to forward their submissions
on admissibility within 3 months.
th
20. By letter and Note Verbale dated 15 March 2004, the parties to the communication were
reminded to forward their written submission on admissibility of the communication.
th
21. On 25 March 2004, the Secretariat of the African Commission received the Respondent State‟s
written submissions on admissibility.
th
22. By Note Verbale dated 26 March 2004, the Secretariat of the African Commission
acknowledged receipt of the Respondent State‟s submissions on admissibility and forwarded the same
to the Complainant by fax.
nd
23. On 2 April 2004, the Secretariat of the African Commission received the Complainants‟ written
submissions on admissibility.