Chief Justice David Maraga and his deputy Philomena Mwilu. Their fate
now rests in the hands of the 19-member Justice and Legal Affairs
committee, chaired by Baringo North MP William Cheptumo. PHOTO | JEFF
ANGOTE | NATION MEDIA GROUP
After months of speculation on who will finally create headache
for the Supreme Court and attempt to dismantle the Judicial Service
Commission, Nairobi lawyer Adrian Kamotho Njenga has turned out to be
the one.
And now the fate of Chief
Justice David Maraga and his deputy Philomena Mwilu rests in the hands
of the 19-member Justice and Legal Affairs committee, chaired by Baringo
North MP William Cheptumo.
Kandara MP Alice Wahome is his deputy.
Little is known about the petitioner, but the Nation
Monday established that he vied for the Kiharu parliamentary seat on a
Jubilee ticket last year but lost at the nomination stage to Ndindi
Nyoro after garnering 687 votes against Nyoro’s 28,323. He has also
filed various other public interest cases in the courts.
By
filing a petition for the removal of several JSC members, the lawyer
has put the fate of two senior members of the Supreme Court in the
balance and at the mercy of Jubilee MPs — who are more than eager to
have a duel with both Mr Maraga and Ms Mwilu, whom they have publicly
accused of quashing their August 8, 2017 presidential election victory.
TRIBUNAL
By
targeting the two as JSC members, Mr Njenga hopes to have the National
Assembly request the President to name a tribunal that will ultimately
bring Mr Maraga and Ms Mwilu to their defence, a move that could
conceivably see them lose their positions at the apex court.
Other
members of the JSC targeted by the petitioner include Justices Mohammed
Warsame of the Court of Appeal and Aggrey Muchelule of the High Court,
Prof Tom Ojienda, Ms Emily Ominde, and Ms Mercy Deche.
The
petition, if it succeeds, could lead to an overhaul of the body created
to promote the independence of the Judiciary, with consequences which
are far from certain.
The JSC needs a quorum of six members and the petition and how it is handled could cripple it.
Mr
Njenga argues that the seven members have adopted a subjective,
personalised and vindictive style to handling complaints against judges.
“They
have failed to abide by the standards laid down by the Constitution and
precedents by the Justice and Magistrates Vetting Board, and have even
departed from the rules applied by the JSC in the Justice Joseph Mutava
removal petition,” he argues, pointing out that they have deliberately
and completely abandoned all known rules or criteria in the disposal of
petitions brought against judges and judicial officers.
“Contrary
to the Constitution, which demands objectivity and impartiality in
decision making, and in ensuring that decisions are not influenced by
nepotism, favouritism, other improper motives or corrupt practices, the
seven JSC members have failed to demonstrate honesty in the execution of
public duties,” he says.
ILL-CONCEIVED
But
Prof Ojienda Monday dismissed the petition, terming it as ill-conceived
and a desperate attempt by Mr Njenga to appeal the decisions of the
commission to Parliament.
“We are living in interesting times,” said Prof Ojienda. “It is crazy.”
Prof
Ojienda said the commission is a quasi-judicial tribunal whenever it
sits to deliberate on disciplinary issues of judicial officers, and
insisted that as long as the laid down procedures are followed in such
meetings, their decisions are valid and can only be challenged in the
high court through judicial review proceedings and constitutional
interpretation applications.
“We will wait to be served and we shall respond appropriately,” he said.
The
Speaker of the National Assembly will communicate the details of the
petition to the plenary session of the House and commit the petition to
the Justice and Legal Affairs committee.
The
committee will then investigate the matter and file a report to the
House for adoption. If the committee establishes culpability on the part
of the seven, it may write an adverse report whose recommendations may
include the formation of a tribunal to investigate the seven to serve as
judges and commissioners on the JSC.
The
Judiciary has had a difficult relationship with the Jubilee government
after the Supreme Court nullified the outcome of the August 8, 2017
presidential election on grounds that the election, in which Mr Uhuru
Kenyatta was declared the winner, was not conducted in accordance with
the law.
The petitioner alleges that
the seven have, without any constitutional regard or justification,
dismissed separate petitions presented to the JSC against Justices
Maraga, Mwilu, Lenaola, and Mativo.
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
He
further claims that Mr Maraga and the six members irregularly and
without any reasonable basis constituted a “special committee” to trump
up allegations against, bully, humiliate and arm-twist five judicial
officers.
The five are Justice
Jackton Ojwang of the Supreme Court, Justice Paul Kihara who has been
serving as President of Court Appeal until this month when President
Uhuru Kenyatta picked him to be the next Attorney-General, and Justices
Erastus Githinji, Martha Koome and Fatuma Sichale of the Court of
Appeal.
He claims the special
committee is investigating Justice Ojwang over the construction of a
tarmac road leading to his private residence in his rural area. Mr
Kihara is being put on the spot over the manner he constituted a Bench
on a public holiday to hear an appeal of a High Court decision that
annulled the appointment of presiding and returning officers in the
repeat October 26 presidential election because it was done outside the
law.
Justices Githinji, Koome and
Sichale, who stayed the decision, are also on the firing line as JSC
questions how they were able to sit on a public holiday without the
clearance from the office of the Chief Justice, considering the day was a
gazetted public holiday.
On the
contrary, Mr Njenga says the seven had done nothing over the petition
submitted to it by Nyeri MP Ngunjiri Wambugu against Justice Maraga,
which he says JSC had “callously” dismissed without appropriate
interrogation of the fundamental issues the MP had raised.
No comments :
Post a Comment