Prior to the August 9 elections, lawsuits had been filed against now deputy president-elect Rigathi Gachagua over graft allegations.

Shortly afterward the IEBC declared William Ruto and Rigathi Gachagua president-elect and deputy-president elect respectively.

How to go about prosecuting and handling court cases involving the two remains a  hard nut to crack for three state agencies that were handling the same.

The two have repeatedly claimed that the lawsuits were political conspiracies and not issue-based.

The three state agencies include the Kenya Civil Aviation Authority, the Office of the director of Public Prosecutions, and the Assets Recovery Agency.

The agencies are now left with a tough decision of how ethical or lack thereof it is to push own with suits that could probably see asset seizures of the two newly announced president and president elect.

Credible sources at the Kenya Civil Aviation Authority and Assets Recovery Agency have intimated the likelihood of ceasing the case.

The Assets Recovery Agency appealed to the High Court of Kenya to size Money to the tune of 202 million from the former Mathira member of Parliament. The petition was successful as the cash was found to be proceeds of graft.

High court judge passed a ruling citing that evidence shows the 202 million came from the government but there was no evidence showing that he had supplied goods or services.

Incumbent deputy President Ruto was declared the winner of the hotly contested presidential race. However, in a rather predictable turn of events, his counterpart Rails Odinga rejected the results and promised to explore constitutional and legal methods to resolve the matter.

UDA lawyer Adrian Kamotho Njenga stated that Ruto would not bring in undue external interference as he intended to clear his name from all pending allegations in court.

Whether or not the cases will go on or not is a question only time will tell.

In case William Ruto is sworn into office and assumes the presidency should he enjoy presidential immunity?

Referencing the BBI case, the question of suing a sitting president elicited extensive debate.

Some scholars believe a president enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution others on the other hand believe that absolute immunity is not applicable in civil prosecutions.

In previous regimes, it was impossible for a court of law to indict a sitting president for constitutional or legal offenses.