Why JSC should appear before the House

Chief Justice Willy Mutunga flanked by JSC members addressing the press at the Supreme Court on August 19, 2013. Members of the Judicial Service Commission resolved they will not honour summons by parliament to appear before the Justice and Legal Affairs committee. 

In Summary

• The intransigence by the JSC could come back to haunt them when they get their begging bowl out during the preparation of the Appropriations Bill 2014.

Media reports about the decision by the Judicial Service Commission not to honour the summons by the Parliamentary Committee on Administration of Justice and Constitutional Affairs should not be taken lightly.

In constitutional order, Parliament is one arm of government, but it is also the most important pillar of our democracy. We elect parliamentarians to not only legislate, but also represent us in matters that affect us either directly or indirectly.

That mandate extends to the investigation and determination of whether improprieties have occurred. The committees formed by parliamentarians serve to uphold our interests as the “owners” of the country, wenyenchi. The JSC is paid out of the public purse and to that extent, they are answerable to the people of Kenya as represented by Parliament.

My view on the present saga involving the Chief Registrar is that the JSC needs to shed light on exactly what transpired and to give its side of the story.

The parliamentary committee had not indicated that it wanted to overrule the decision of the JSC, but only needed some clarity on the events surrounding the decision.

While I do not hold brief for Parliament, the committee is only playing its watchdog role as mandated by the Constitution especially since, in this particular case, the legality and the manner in which the decision was reached has been called to question.

It is in the interests of the JSC that they appear before Wanjiku and clear the air because any contrary position would suggest that the JSC is a law unto itself with no responsibility to anyone or anybody.

The intransigence by the JSC could come back to haunt them when they get their begging bowl out during the preparation of the Appropriations Bill 2014.

The commissioners should re-acquaint themselves with Section 173 of the Constitution and contemplate whether their stated position is in their interests or whether it will be counter-productive.

The Constitution under Section 10(2)( c ) envisages “good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability” as considerations by all state organs, state officers, public officers... who make(s) or implement(s) public policy decisions and/or act in the public’s name.

The decision by the JSC to suspend the Chief Registrar has been questioned on grounds of malice, bias and vested interests not only by the star of the play, Mrs G.B. Shollei, but by some members of the commission itself.

The JSC can only cite the Doctrine of Separation of Powers when their actions are legitimate, but in cases where the actions are called to question, equity demands that they come clean.

The manner in which the suspension of Ms Shollei was handled was, to say the least, unprocedural. If the correct mechanisms, as anticipated by the JSC Act as well as the procedures therein, had been followed, then this whole affair would not be hogging the public limelight.

The now widely accepted habit of questioning every action by Parliament, even when it is obviously acting in the public interest, has to stop to allow for proper supervision of institutions under its purview. I for one, am very interested in hearing the adversely implicated commissioners give their side of the story.