Attorney General and retired President Uhuru Kenyatta’s son Jomo are seeking an out-of-court settlement in a firearm’s license dispute.
Appearing before High Court judge Jairus Ngaah, Jomo through his lawyer Fred Ngatia informed the court that he was negotiating with the government with a view to settling the matter.
Jomo moved to court in July accusing the government of violating his constitutional rights by planning to withdraw his firearm license.
Attorney General, through state counsel Munene Wanjohi, confirmed that the parties were negotiating and asked for more time to resolve the dispute.
Justice Ngaah pushed the case to January 31 to see whether a deal would have been reached.
Jomo moved to the court, stating that his constitutional rights were under threat after police officers stormed his Windy Ridge home in Karen on Friday, July 21, and verbally demanded that he surrender the firearms he owns.
He argued that the decision was made without following the process set out in the Firearms Act.
“The unilateral decision by the 1st and 2nd respondents to arbitrarily withdraw or revoke the applicant’s license is illegal and ultra vires since the 1st respondent does not have the authority to unilaterally and arbitrarily withdraw the license without following the set out procedure,” he said in the petition filed through senior counsel Fred Ngatia.
Also read: Details of Uhuru Kenyatta’s son Jomo whose home was raided by police
He sued the chief licensing officer, the Firearms Licensing Board, and the Attorney General.
The Board had opposed the petition and urged the court to dismiss the case, arguing that it was based on speculations.
The board also faulted Jomo over the failure to exhaust the remedies available under the Firearms Act before moving to court.
But Jomo said he was apprehensive that the officers might deploy brute force to compel him to surrender his firearms and license and ‘whilst so engaged attract media attention with the resultant publication that the applicant has been dispossessed his firearms thus unwittingly inviting criminal elements to target the applicant,” he said in the application.
He faulted the board over its failure to give him notice of the intended withdrawal and, therefore, sought the court’s protection.
