The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has raised concerns in the manner in which the allegations raised against the seven Supreme Court judges have been handled.
LSK in a statement issued on Wednesday, February 26, 2025, said that it was concerned that both the allegations against the Supreme Court Judges, and the manner in which they have been handled, have been undertaken through a disruptive approach.
LSK President Faith Odhiambo in the statement said that the relevant institutions involved in the process should be more constructive to enable a legitimate and credible consideration of the matter which is of considerable public importance.
LSK warns of consequences
If the shift is not achieved, LSK warns that there may be the unintended consequence of embarrassing the apex court, and the entire Judiciary.
“The appointment and removal of Judges is a process that involves an interplay between the Judiciary acting through the JSC and the President. Under this process, the appointment of Judges is undertaken under by the JSC that determines merit and suitability of each applicant, with a formal responsibility bestowed on the President to make the appointments following the recommendations of the JSC.
“The removal process is however initiated by the JSC, with a constitutional agency bestowed on the President which is empowered to establish the Tribunal. It is the Tribunal which is vested with the constitutional mandate to conduct a quasi-judicial process. involving a full merit consideration of evidence. The entire process exists as an intrinsic check process that makes both the appointment, and removal a function of two arms of government: the Judiciary and Executive,” LSK stated.
“This balance of responsibility ensures that the Judiciary retains substantial control of the appointment process, while the President has a constitutional agency in the removal process by appointing the Tribunal, which undertakes the quasi-judicial process.
“This process, in the opinion of the LSK gives due attention to necessary intrinsic checks and balances between the two institutions. The full operations of the process can be elaborated in the Judicial Service Act and the Supreme Court Act.
“However, the Supreme Court Act does not provide further elaboration of the process while the Judicial Service Act may not aptly contemplate the nature, composition, and the special circumstances of the Supreme Court.”
Adding: “Having noted this, the LSK is concerned that both the allegations against the 7 Supreme Court Judges, and the manner in which they have been handled, have been undertaken through a disruptive approach. It is our view that the relevant institutions involved in this process should be more constructive to enable a legitimate and credible consideration of this matter which is of considerable public importance. Unless this shift is achieved, there may be the unintended consequence of embarrassing the apex court, and the entire Judiciary.”
Over the last few months, the Supreme Court of Kenya has come under the public spotlight on account of disquieting allegations of gross misconduct incompetence, and breach of the Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations by the Judges of the Supreme Court of… pic.twitter.com/YwYzyjtQEi
— Law Society of Kenya (@LawSocietyofKe) February 26, 2025
LSK on petitions
LSK went ahead to say that it was important that the petitions be determined expeditiously to ascertain their veracity and alleviate the growing apprehension that the apex Court is bereft of credibility.
“Further, we appreciate that the petitions before the JSC raise serious concerns that touch on the Supreme Court’s competence and ability to act as a dependable, neutral, and independent arbiter in the administration of justice.
“It is therefore important that the petitions are determined expeditiously to ascertain their veracity and alleviate the growing apprehension that the apex Court is bereft of credibility. Failure to resolve this matter with the requisite efficiency is likely to undermine public trust in the integrity of the process and the legitimacy of its outcomes. In this regard, justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done,” part of the statement read.
The battle to save the seven Supreme Court judges heightened on Tuesday, February 25, with Deputy President Kithure Kindiki warning that attempts to remove them are a threat to judicial independence.
On a day that Supreme Court judges Philemona Mwilu (DCJ), Mohamed Ibrahim, Isaac Lenaola, and William Ouko got a reprieve after the High Court temporarily stopped their removal, Kindiki waded into the matter with a caution that ousting them threatens the rule of law.
“The Chief Justice and the Supreme Court judges will be defended not because of their ethnicity but because the attempt to bring down an entire Supreme Court for its decisions undermines the independence of judges, threatens the rule of law, and fatally injures the underpinnings of our democracy…” Kindiki posted on his X handle.
Leave a Reply