A Nation in Mourning: Court Throws Away Petition Seeking to Delay Raila Burial

The High Court of Kenya has declined to issue conservatory orders that would have halted the burial of former Prime Minister Raila Odinga, scheduled for Sunday, October 19, 2025.

The ruling followed a petition filed by a man who argued that the planned burial violated Luo cultural customs and failed to reflect the stature and legacy of the late statesman.

The petitioner contended that the burial, set to take place within 72 hours of Odinga’s passing, was being rushed and did not align with traditional Luo funeral rites.

According to the court documents, the petitioner argued that Odinga, having been formally crowned as an elder by the Luo Council of Elders in 2020, was entitled to a culturally significant and elaborate burial.

The petitioner further compared Odinga to other national figures such as Jomo Kenyatta, Mwai Kibaki, and Tom Mboya, all of whom were accorded ceremonious send-offs that, in his view, reflected their national importance.

He also claimed that there was no verifiable evidence to support the assertion that Odinga had requested to be buried within 72 hours, and warned that such haste would interfere with culturally sanctioned mourning practices.

Central to the petitioner's argument was Article 44 of the Kenyan Constitution, which guarantees every person the right to enjoy their culture and participate in cultural life.

He maintained that the expedited burial disregarded not only community expectations but also Odinga’s deep connection to Luo traditions, thereby infringing upon this constitutional protection.

However, in his ruling, Justice Chacha Mwita rejected the petition, stating that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the burial plans contradicted Odinga’s personal wishes.

The judge underscored the absence of evidence indicating that the process being undertaken by the family went against what Odinga might have wanted.

He further expressed dissatisfaction with the urgency presented by the applicant, noting that the matter did not meet the threshold required for emergency judicial intervention.

The court’s decision reflects a cautious approach to intervening in matters involving death and cultural customs, particularly when the deceased’s own intentions are not clearly established.

By denying the conservatory orders, the court effectively deferred to the autonomy of the family and respected their right to carry out burial plans that they claimed were consistent with Odinga’s personal wishes.

This case highlights the complex interplay between individual rights, cultural traditions, and legal authority in Kenya.

While cultural rights are constitutionally protected, the court made it clear that they must be balanced against personal autonomy and family decisions, particularly in the absence of a clear and urgent constitutional breach.

In this instance, the judiciary prioritized the lack of evidence contradicting the family’s position over the broader cultural arguments presented by the petitioner.

Ultimately, the ruling allowed preparations for Odinga’s burial to proceed as planned, affirming the family's account that the former Prime Minister wished to be laid to rest within three days of his passing.

The judgment sets an important precedent, signaling that while cultural practices hold significant value, they do not automatically override individual or family choices unless a compelling legal basis is established.