Legal standoff: Eight court cases stall petitions seeking removal of Koome, Supreme Court judges
Despite the legal hurdles, the JSC maintains that it will uphold its mandate in promoting judicial independence and accountability.
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has said eight High Court cases challenging petitions seeking the removal of Chief Justice Martha Koome and Supreme Court judges over allegations of misconduct and incompetence have been lodged.
The petitions, filed under Article 168 of the Constitution, sought to remove the judges from office.
More To Read
- Supreme Court softens stance on Ahmednasir, hints at possible reconsideration
- Supreme Court to determine fate of 27 constituencies ahead of 2027 polls
- NIS set aside budget to disband Supreme Court, fire Koome - Gachagua
- Supreme Court upholds ban on Ahmednasir, declines to allow lawyer’s firm to represent client
However, interim court orders have restrained the JSC from processing them or requiring the judges to respond to the allegations. This legal standoff has effectively stalled the petitions, with the commission unable to take further action until the cases are resolved.
JSC Vice-Chairperson Isaac Rutto in a statement on Tuesday noted that while the commission is bound by the court orders, it remains committed to fulfilling its constitutional duties.
"The JSC is now restrained from processing the subject petitions or commenting on the ongoing court cases," he stated.
Despite the legal hurdles, the JSC maintains that it will uphold its mandate in promoting judicial independence and accountability.
"We reiterate the Commission's commitment to respecting the rule of law and discharging its mandate without fear, favour or ill-will," Rutto added.
As the cases continue in court, the commission has vowed to defend its authority to handle judicial complaints as outlined in Articles 168, 172, and 252 of the Constitution.
However, it remains unclear how long the legal battle will delay the resolution of the petitions.
The legal battle deepened after four more Supreme Court judges secured court orders halting their potential removal.
Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, along with Justices Mohammed Ibrahim, Isaac Lenaola, and William Ouko, obtained conservatory orders from High Court Judge Lawrence Mugambi.
The judges argue that the disciplinary process stems from social media posts by lawyers Nelson Havi and Ahmednassir Abdullahi, which they claim have unfairly influenced public perception.
Justice Mugambi ruled that the judges must serve the respondents and interested parties, including the JSC, Havi, Ahmednassir, and Dari Limited, by the close of business on Tuesday
The parties are required to file their responses by March 3, 2025, with a mention set for March 6, 2025, to confirm compliance and issue further directions.
In separate cases, Justices Lenaola and Ouko also secured orders suspending JSC proceedings, with their matters set for mention on March 5, 2025.
Lenaola contended that the JSC should avoid complaints that force it to assess a judge's ruling or judgment as a basis for incompetence. He accused the commission of failing to shield judges from what he termed "persistent vilifying speeches" disguised as free expression.
"The actions threaten to abolish the Supreme Court established by law by seeking removal of the entire bench of seven judges through unconstitutional means," Lenaola stated.
Justice Ouko echoed similar concerns, warning that the JSC should not be the institution subjecting judges to public ridicule.
"Its actions contradict its constitutional duty, creating a precedent where judges can be publicly discredited without due process, in violation of their inherent right to dignity," he stated.
Koome had already secured a similar order last Friday before Judge Mugambi. In her application, she argued that the JSC lacks the authority to entertain complaints against Supreme Court judges for decisions made in their judicial capacity.
Koome stressed that allowing such petitions would undermine judicial independence. She pointed out that two pending petitions before the JSC, one filed by Havi and another by Christopher Rosana stem from Supreme Court rulings and should not be subject to disciplinary proceedings.
"Allowing the JSC to entertain, hear, or determine the two petitions would amount to a mockery of justice, as the constitution must be applied in a manner that upholds public interest and ensures that the integrity of the judiciary is not undermined," Koome argued.
Justice Mwilu also dismissed the petitions as baseless, linking them to unverified claims from social interactions between Havi and Ahmednassir. "These claims lack a solid foundation as they are not supported by evidence."
Justice Ibrahim reinforced this position, insisting that the JSC has no jurisdiction over such matters, further intensifying the standoff between the judiciary and the commission.
Top Stories Today
