From left: Supreme Court judges Njoki Ndung'u, Smokin Wanjala, Deputy
Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, Chief Justice David Maraga, Jackton
Ojwang' and Isaac Lenaola prepare to preside over the election petition
case at the Supreme Court on November 16, 2017. They will make a ruling
on Monday. PHOTO | JEFF ANGOTE | NATION MEDIA GROUP
Judges have in the past one year endured harsh words and, in some instances, threats for carrying out their work.
From threats of “we shall revisit” to being labelled “korti bandia” (kangaroo court) and “wakora”, the judges have been on the receiving end from both sides of the political divide.
The attacks have increased as the Judiciary moved to assert its independence in handling disputes before it.
They
peaked after the Supreme Court nullified the August 8 presidential
election and ordered the Independent Electoral and Boundaries
Commission to conduct fresh election with 60 days.
At
some point, Chief Justice David Maraga, as the chairperson of the
Judicial Service Commission (JSC) was forced to come out and defend the
Judiciary from these attacks.
Mr
Maraga pointed out that individual judges, particularly those at the
Supreme Court, as well as other judicial officers and staff, have been
attacked, threatened and negatively profiled on social media. He said
senior political leaders have also threatened the Judiciary promising
‘‘to cut it down to size’’ and ‘’teach us a lesson’’.
DEMEANING
“These
attacks are denigrating, demeaning and degrading and are meant to
intimidate, threaten and cow the institution and individual judges. Such
acts are not only unlawful but also savage in nature,” he said.
Other
than Chief Justice Maraga, other judges who were targets of verbal and
online attacks were Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, Justices Isaac
Lenaola, Njoki Ndung’u, several Court of Appeal judges as well as High
Court Judge George Odunga.
Justice
Lenaola at one time threatened to sue the Digital director at State
House Denis Itumbi after the latter made allegations about him in
connection to the nullification of the August 8 presidential election.
The
Supreme Court judge was among the majority which nullified the
presidential poll result. He demanded that Mr Itumbi deletes all the
tweets and apologises to him.
Mr Justice Odunga was subjected of harsh criticisms especially for ruling against the government in several cases.
TRIBAL POLITICS
Majority
Leader in the National Assembly Aden Duale accused Justice Odunga of
playing tribal politics and being partisan. This was in regard to an
application by the opposition on proposed amendments before Parliament.
Politicians also complained about the judge for his handling of the
ballot printing case against Dubai based firm Al Ghurair.
In
the statement issued by JSC, Justice Maraga said that whereas they
recognise and respect the rights of citizens to speak their minds, some
attacks were clearly intended to intimidate the Judiciary and individual
judges.
“In view of these
unfortunate developments, the JSC would like to state that we
unreservedly condemn these mindless acts of aggression against the
Judiciary and reiterate that if anything happens to the individual
judges, staff or their families, those making inciting statements will
be personally held responsible,” he said.
DEFEND JUDGES
Despite
coming out boldly to defend judges, an attack was carried against
Justice Mwilu’s aide, a few hours before the Supreme Court judges held a
sitting to hear an application in connection to the repeat poll. The
shooting made the Deputy CJ to miss the sitting and eventually, the
court failed to convene over lack of quorum.
Before
that, Justice Maraga had complained that the Inspector-General of
Police Joseph Boinett, who is expected to provide security to all
government facilities, had repeatedly ignored calls to act, exposing
judicial officers, property and litigants to danger. Mr Boinett
dismissed the claims.
Angered
by the actions Mr Maraga stated that the Judiciary is an arm of
government equal to the Executive and the Legislature. And if leaders
are tired of having a strong and independent Judiciary, they should call
a referendum and abolish it altogether.
“Before
that happens, the Judiciary will continue to discharge its mandate in
accordance with the Constitution and individual oaths of office,” he
said.
He said the Judiciary has not and will never seek to direct the other arms about how to perform their functions.
No comments:
Post a Comment