Tensions high in Kenya as President attacks judiciary

11 January 2024 · Carmel Rickard

The health of judicial independence in Kenya has come under scrutiny since the start of this new year. That’s ever since the president, William Ruto, launched a reinvigorated war of words on the judiciary. He called the judiciary ‘corrupt’ and threatened to ignore court orders that delayed his planned public development projects. As the row continues, the CJ has urged her judicial colleagues to continue doing their work as usual and promised her support to them. The judiciary has also been given backing from both local and international supporters of the courts and judicial independence. Among others, members of the legal profession planned to protest at the supreme court to show their support for the judiciary.

Kenya’s president, William Ruto, began the new year in fighting mode with a tirade against the judiciary, accusing it of being corrupt and having been bought off to prevent the success of his (Ruto’s) public housing and other programmes.

Just a couple of days later, he relaunched his attack, saying the judiciary was ‘riding on impunity’ and adding that the executive would defy court orders that halted his development agenda.

That presidential attack was quickly backed up by some of Ruto’s supporters in parliament.

And when the legal community responded, there were further harsh words from the president’s official spokesperson who said that Ruto’s ‘push for judicial reforms’ was ‘unstoppable’, and chastised the Law Society of Kenya for its criticisms of Ruto over his tirade.

‘Judicial corruption’

In his attacks, Ruto said while the judiciary may be independent, that doesn’t mean it was ‘too important not to be questioned’ and that it still had to answer to the people of Kenya.

‘I mean it,’ he said. ‘We are going to deal firmly and decisively to root out corruption in the judiciary.’

What sends chills down the spine of all judicial-watchers is the memory of an earlier era in Kenya when the courts were effectively puppets of the government, and did its bidding.

Since then, major political and constitutional changes have seen the judiciary reshape itself, get rid of the worst of those on the bench who were government puppets, and take a strong stand for its own independence under the constitution.

‘Emboldened by the constitution’

This concern about a return to the past when the judiciary was the servant of the executive was clearly detectable in the official statement issued by the judicial service commission (JSC) in response to the attack by the president and his supporters.

Signed by the chief justice, Martha Koome, in her capacity as chairperson of the JSC, the statement said that the judiciary was ‘emboldened by the constitution’ to protect its independence and that this was critically important ‘to the stability ad democratic character’ of Kenya.

Given that background, the JSC was concerned that the judiciary had been ‘subjected to public criticism and vilification for issuing orders that are perceived to be against state programmes and policies.’

‘The JSC wishes to reaffirm the independence and integrity of the judiciary as a co-equal arm of government, as enshrined in the constitution and urges all judges and judicial officers to continue performing the judicial duties without fear or favour.’

Adherence to the law required by the constitution

The statement also pointed out to ‘the state and public officers’ that the constitution required the state to ‘ensure respect for the law and adherence to the law’. And where someone obtained a court order against the state that was ‘deliberately ignored or disobeyed by state officials, the right of access to justice is undermined because it fatally attacks the effectiveness of the legal system on which ordinary citizens rely to have their rights and legal duties enforced.’

It further assured Kenyans the any allegations about judicial misconduct or corruption would be ‘dealt with firmly and swiftly’ in accordance with the constitution, and it pointed to the record of the JSC as a body that took action against any judicial officer found to have breached the judicial code of conduct and ethics or to have engaged in corrupt practices.

Responses support judicial independence in Kenya

Despite government criticism of its involvement in the dispute, the law society, under its president Eric Theuri, had planned a protest at the supreme court, timed for Friday, 12 January.

Next to express support for the beleaguered Kenya judiciary was the East African Magistrates and Judges Association which said that the Ruto government should have used ‘legal channels’ to deal with his concerns.

‘Any concerns or disputes must be handled through established legal channels, respecting the principles of due process and the separation of powers.’

Strong support for the Kenyan judiciary has also come from three Commonwealth legal bodies. The Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association, the Commonwealth Legal Education Association and the Commonwealth Lawyers Association issued a joint statement on 11 January, saying they were ‘deeply concerned’ about the attacks on judicial independence in Kenya, following judgments by the courts in litigation challenging government decisions.

Courts the ‘guardians of justice’

‘We urge the government of Kenya to respect the authority and independence of the judiciary and ensure that court decisions are respected and complied with and that due process is followed in line with Kenya’s constitution and its international obligations regarding any investigation of judicial officers for alleged corruption.’

The three associations said that a democratic state based on the rule of law could not function ‘if the government and other state authorities ignore their constitutional obligations and fail to abide by court orders.’

‘A court is the guardian of justice and the cornerstone of a democratic system based on the rule of law. If the state, an organ of state or a state official does not abide by court orders, democracy will be gravely undermined.’

‘Cease public attacks on the judiciary’

Kenya was committed to the shared values and principles of the Commonwealth, central to which were ‘democratic principles including respect for the authority of an independent and impartial judiciary. Any measure on the part of the state authorities which is seen as eroding the authority and independence of the judiciary, is a matter of serious concern.’

Finally, the association urged Kenya’s government and public authorities to ‘respect the rule of law and comply with orders of the courts, cease making public criticism and attacks on the judiciary and ensure that any process of investigation is fair and free from undue influence.’

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.