Judiciary fights back against CAJ's summons over complaints disclosure
CAJ now accuses JSC of engaging in a "cyclic process of exchange" that does not support service delivery.
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has dismissed the summons issued by the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ), arguing that the Ombudsman lacks the authority to direct an independent constitutional body.
The summons, which sought to compel Chief Justice Martha Koome and nine other JSC members to appear before CAJ, was issued on Friday over claims that the commission failed to publish details of complaints received against judges and judicial officers.
More To Read
- Petitioners seek removal of seven Supreme Court judges over alleged misconduct
- Judicial Service Commission cancels 16 vacancies for judges due to budget cuts
- JSC revokes 16 judicial vacancies for Court of Appeal, High Court judges
- Ombudsman directs JSC to publish complaints against judges, decisions within 21 days
In response, JSC Secretary Winfridah Mokaya said the move by CAJ was unconstitutional and amounted to an overreach.
"Such reckless conduct undermines the rule of law, erodes public confidence in independent institutions, and disrupts the crucial work of the Judiciary. The JSC will not be coerced or intimidated into submitting to an unconstitutional process. It remains steadfast in protecting judicial independence and ensuring that all engagements with other institutions are conducted within the confines of the law," Mokaya stated.
The JSC maintains that information regarding complaints is already available in its annual reports and the State of the Judiciary and Administration of Justice Reports (SoJAR).
According to the commission, these reports provide comprehensive details on the number, nature, and status of complaints and petitions handled.
Ultimatum to publish complaints
On December 24, 2024, CAJ gave the commission a 21-day ultimatum to publish complaints and petitions lodged against judicial officers, responses received, an analysis of issues, and determinations made.
However, CAJ now accuses JSC of engaging in a "cyclic process of exchange" that does not support service delivery.
CAJ Chairperson Charles Dulo said Kenyans deserve transparency regarding complaints lodged against judges.
"The information that we are seeking on behalf of Kenyans are the details of these complaints. The vice chairperson (Isaac Ruto) came out and said that they had received complaints against judges. Where is this information? What is the nature of these complaints?" Dulo asked.
CAJ invoked Section 252(3) of the Constitution and Sections 4 and 27 of the Commission on Administrative Justice Act as the legal basis for the summons.
Dulo warned that failure to appear before the commission could attract a fine not exceeding Sh500,000 or imprisonment for a term of up to two years.
JSC, however, insists that it has already addressed CAJ's concerns. On February 3, CAJ requested an update on 700 complaints received since 2019.
In response, the Judiciary, through a letter dated February 17, 2025 provided a detailed report outlining the resolution of these complaints.
The JSC also pointed out that during a National Council on the Administration of Justice (NCAJ) meeting on February 19, chaired by Chief Justice Koome, Dulo did not raise any concerns about judicial accountability. Instead, he apologised to the Chief Justice and committed to further collaboration.
The JSC argues that the Constitution, under Article 249(1) and (2), guarantees its independence and protects it from external interference.
The commission has vowed to challenge the summons through legal means, insisting that CAJ's actions disregard constitutional provisions and set a dangerous precedent.
As the dispute unfolds, the Judiciary maintains that it remains committed to transparency and accountability but will not allow what it calls unconstitutional interference in its work.
Top Stories Today
