It
was never going to be easy. When Dr Willy Mutunga was sworn in as Chief
Justice and President of the Supreme Court, the hopes of 40 million
Kenyans were pinned on him and the other members of the Court to sweep
out the Augean Stables that the Judiciary had become. As the head of the
Judiciary, the CJ has not disappointed; he has led from the front, bar
one or two unfortunate missteps that we have chosen to ignore. Perhaps
we should have been more wary of getting our wish. The idea that a man
from outside the Establishment was going to save us was always a risky
proposition.
When Dr Mutunga asked for funds to buy helicopters for the Judiciary ostensibly to ensure that no part of the country was not served by his Judges, he made a logically defensible request. He was wrong. In a nation where magistrates and thieves rub shoulders every day in our mentally unstable public transport, his request had the elitism that we have come to associate with the political class. Shameless as the request was, it pales in significance to the suspicion that Willy Mutunga is picking winners and losers out of the crop of Judges and Magistrates facing the Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board. Dr Mutunga is the head of the Judicial Service Commission in addition to being the head of the Judiciary. If he is already attempting to short-circuit the process of judicial vetting, how can we be confident that when the time comes he will act impartially when judicial officers require discipline by the JSC?
The CJ risks endangering the entire reform agenda for the Judiciary with his latest move to rescue the judicial career of Mohammed Ibrahim. Dr Mutunga may be confident in the abilities and probity of the Supreme Court Judge whose been given a second go with the vetting board, but it is not for Dr Mutunga to interfere in the process. Unfair it may seem to the CJ, but it is reprehensible that Mr Ibrahim had scores of judgements pending when he appeared before the Board. Indeed, in one instance, he had a judgment that has followed him around since he started his career on the Bench. Nine years is far too long for the Judge to beg for a second chance. The same resoluteness the CJ applied when Nancy Baraza was accused of improper conduct should have been applied in the case of Mr Ibrahim. Dr Mutunga risks being compared to Johnson Evan Gicheru who was accused of favouring some Judges over others and of appointing gatekeepers. It is for his colleagues on the JSC to remind Dr Mutunga of the oath he took when we was sworn in to protect and defend the Constitution and the law of Kenya.
Dr Mutunga and his Supreme Court are going to face greater challenges than the trials and tribulations of two judges. The level of inequality and unrest in the country demands that they be as dispassionate when leading the Judiciary as possible. If the CJ cannot countenance the loss of a favoured judge who has been accused of such great incompetence, it is doubtful that the CJ will remain untarnished by the lure of the political limelight when the scourges of the political arena find their way before his court. If this is a harbinger of how the CJ will act when faced with difficult problems, it is time Kenyans started seeking a new judicial Messiah.
When Dr Mutunga asked for funds to buy helicopters for the Judiciary ostensibly to ensure that no part of the country was not served by his Judges, he made a logically defensible request. He was wrong. In a nation where magistrates and thieves rub shoulders every day in our mentally unstable public transport, his request had the elitism that we have come to associate with the political class. Shameless as the request was, it pales in significance to the suspicion that Willy Mutunga is picking winners and losers out of the crop of Judges and Magistrates facing the Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board. Dr Mutunga is the head of the Judicial Service Commission in addition to being the head of the Judiciary. If he is already attempting to short-circuit the process of judicial vetting, how can we be confident that when the time comes he will act impartially when judicial officers require discipline by the JSC?
The CJ risks endangering the entire reform agenda for the Judiciary with his latest move to rescue the judicial career of Mohammed Ibrahim. Dr Mutunga may be confident in the abilities and probity of the Supreme Court Judge whose been given a second go with the vetting board, but it is not for Dr Mutunga to interfere in the process. Unfair it may seem to the CJ, but it is reprehensible that Mr Ibrahim had scores of judgements pending when he appeared before the Board. Indeed, in one instance, he had a judgment that has followed him around since he started his career on the Bench. Nine years is far too long for the Judge to beg for a second chance. The same resoluteness the CJ applied when Nancy Baraza was accused of improper conduct should have been applied in the case of Mr Ibrahim. Dr Mutunga risks being compared to Johnson Evan Gicheru who was accused of favouring some Judges over others and of appointing gatekeepers. It is for his colleagues on the JSC to remind Dr Mutunga of the oath he took when we was sworn in to protect and defend the Constitution and the law of Kenya.
Dr Mutunga and his Supreme Court are going to face greater challenges than the trials and tribulations of two judges. The level of inequality and unrest in the country demands that they be as dispassionate when leading the Judiciary as possible. If the CJ cannot countenance the loss of a favoured judge who has been accused of such great incompetence, it is doubtful that the CJ will remain untarnished by the lure of the political limelight when the scourges of the political arena find their way before his court. If this is a harbinger of how the CJ will act when faced with difficult problems, it is time Kenyans started seeking a new judicial Messiah.
No comments:
Post a Comment