Yes, somebody can move to court to challenge the status of ODM as the minority in the National Assembly but it will be tough; and I suspect that is why there has not been a move to formalise the relationship.
My guess is that they thought being midway the term of the House and the electoral cycle, getting into formal arrangements, negotiations and agreements may take time and probably lead to court cases with different quarters challenging who is who and what is what.
That is why they have got into this silent form of come-we-stay relationship, where it becomes difficult for anyone to legally challenge – it is what we see and not what is on paper.
I guess anyone would try and argue that through conduct and the movement we have seen, and perhaps how the different formations are behaving in Parliament, supporting each other, they have a consent.
On paper, they remain as the minority, so in that confusion, they get away with a lot.
I suspect it is UDA that needs ODM more. They can leverage and get more before the term is over.
The line [between ODM and UDA] is really getting thin, with no formal arrangement or public pronouncement because we know that these formations must be legally entrenched through the Office of the Registrar of Political Parties.
I suspect that the movement [of ODM to UDA] depends on whatever backroom agreements these parties have.
The inspiration is more of the relationship that is developing between the different formations in Parliament.
It could also be that, perhaps, ODM has seen weaknesses in UDA in the Legislature and is going for the jugular. It sees the opportunity and they feel they can get more.
They feel UDA needs them right now and they are leveraging on that to access as much as they can. I would think it comes from that, more than the officially recognised way of demarcating positions.
It is just the power play and the factors behind them that
are inspiring the behaviour right now.
Constitutional lawyer spoke to the
Star
