Justice Mohammed Noor Kullow was on Monday, February 3, 2025, handed a reprieve after a tribunal instituted by President William Ruto to investigate his conduct exonerated him.
Justice Noor Kullow was suspended by President William Ruto in March 2024 following a recommendation from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) which cited incompetence gross misconduct, violation of the Constitution, and breach of the Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations, 2020 among others.
After months of investigations, Justice Patrick Kiage, the chairperson of the tribunal and judge of the Court of Appeal, submitted a report clearing Noor Kullow of all wrongdoings.
In their report submitted to the head of state, Kiage’s led tribunal asked President Ruto to reinstate Noor Kullow as the Judge of the Environment and Land Court.
“Your Excellency, having carefully considered all the evidence and following the Tribunal’s finding that Allegations One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve and Thirteen have not been proved to the required extent, we find that the Judge’s conduct was not in breach of the Judicial Service (Code of Conduct and Ethics) Regulations 2020 and did not amount to gross misconduct contrary to Article 168(1) (b) and (e) of the Constitution,” the tribunal’s report read in part.
“In accordance with Article 168(7)(b) of the Constitution, we therefore recommend to Your Excellency that the Honourable Justice Mohammed Noor Kullow be reinstated to the Office of Judge of the Environment and Land Court,” Kiage’s led tribunal implored Ruto.
The allegations
One of the petitions submitted against Justice Noor Kullow was that he delayed in delivering rulings in various cases with the petitioner arguing that amounted to incompetence.
However, the tribunal in its report observed that delay in delivering a ruling did not amount to incompetency as claimed by the petitioner.
While terming the allegation as false, Kiage’s led tribunal indicated that the judge had been celebrated within his jurisdiction for the timely delivery of verdicts before and after the relevant period.
“It must follow, per force, that the delay per se cannot be tantamount to incompetence in the circumstances. The Tribunal further notes that having been celebrated by the Judiciary itself for notable achievements related to the performance of his duties, specifically speedy disposal of cases, both before and after the relevant period, the allegation that he is incompetent and unable to perform the duties of his office stands falsified by the evidence. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Hon. Judge is not incompetent,” it submitted.
In another petition, the judge was accused of issuing conflict rulings thus the petitioner accused him of gross misconduct. However, the tribunal registered that there was no sufficient evidence to back the claim thus dismissing it.
“Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the allegation was unsubstantiated and was unbacked by the evidence. There was no gross misconduct and incompetence established.”
The tribunal evaluated and further investigated all the allegations and established that they did not warrant his sanctioning and thus advised the President to reinstate him.
Leave a Reply