According to Omari, the main issue revolves around the procedure allegedly used to forward the nomination.
He argues that the process may not have fully complied with internationally recognized standards normally applied in judicial and quasi-judicial appointments.
The lawyer claims that key principles such as transparency, merit-based assessment, and institutional participation were either insufficiently applied or overlooked during the nomination process.
One of the major concerns raised relates to public participation. Omari argued that there was limited involvement of stakeholders and members of the public before the nomination was made, raising questions about accountability and openness.
He further claimed that the absence of the Judicial Service Commission in the process weakens the credibility of the nomination.
According to him, the commission traditionally plays a central role in matters involving judicial appointments and legal vetting in Kenya.
Omari also raised concerns about timelines, alleging that Kenya may not have complied with procedural deadlines required under ICC nomination guidelines. He warned that such technical issues could potentially expose the nomination to administrative challenges during preliminary vetting stages.
The lawyer additionally questioned the role played by the Attorney General’s office and presidential legal advisers, arguing that the nomination appeared to have been managed centrally rather than through an independent institutional framework.
According to Omari, ICC appointments require extensive evaluation of a candidate’s legal experience, qualifications, integrity, and international judicial standing. He argued that countries nominating candidates for such roles are expected to follow structured and transparent procedures involving multiple oversight bodies.
He claimed that other nations typically subject judicial nominations to wider scrutiny and institutional review before submission to international bodies, unlike what he described as Kenya’s allegedly flawed approach in this case.
Legal observers following the matter say the controversy has sparked wider discussion about transparency, institutional coordination, and adherence to international recruitment standards in Kenya’s high-level international appointments.
Despite the concerns raised, no official determination has been made regarding Justice Ndung’u’s eligibility, and the nomination process is expected to continue through the relevant ICC procedures unless formally challenged or rejected during vetting.
The debate now places attention on whether government institutions involved in the nomination will issue clarification regarding the process and address the procedural concerns raised by critics.
Omari also raised concerns about timelines, alleging that Kenya may not have complied with procedural deadlines required under ICC nomination guidelines. He warned that such technical issues could potentially expose the nomination to administrative challenges during preliminary vetting stages.
The lawyer additionally questioned the role played by the Attorney General’s office and presidential legal advisers, arguing that the nomination appeared to have been managed centrally rather than through an independent institutional framework.
According to Omari, ICC appointments require extensive evaluation of a candidate’s legal experience, qualifications, integrity, and international judicial standing. He argued that countries nominating candidates for such roles are expected to follow structured and transparent procedures involving multiple oversight bodies.
He claimed that other nations typically subject judicial nominations to wider scrutiny and institutional review before submission to international bodies, unlike what he described as Kenya’s allegedly flawed approach in this case.
Legal observers following the matter say the controversy has sparked wider discussion about transparency, institutional coordination, and adherence to international recruitment standards in Kenya’s high-level international appointments.
Despite the concerns raised, no official determination has been made regarding Justice Ndung’u’s eligibility, and the nomination process is expected to continue through the relevant ICC procedures unless formally challenged or rejected during vetting.
The debate now places attention on whether government institutions involved in the nomination will issue clarification regarding the process and address the procedural concerns raised by critics.