Why Tuju’s new EACC petition against Supreme Court judges raises grave matters
Former Cabinet Minister Raphael Tuju appeared confident but visibly displeased as he arrived at the offices of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) on Tuesday, carrying what he claims to be damning evidence implicating Supreme Court judges in shocking corruption.
Should he succeed in his latest pursuit, it could expose the extent to which corruption is entrenched within the country’s highest court, further eroding the already dwindling confidence in Kenya’s justice system.
More To Read
- New report on corruption says loopholes in anti-graft laws hindering enforcement
- EACC recovers Sh28 billion in corruptly acquired assets, pursues Sh50 billion more
- High Court blocks EACC from investigating bribery claims against Thika Magistrate Stella Atambo
- EACC recovers Sh45m public land allocated to private individuals in Nairobi
Tuju’s frustration with the country’s top judges was evident even as his legal team filed a fresh court case—this time against the Registrar of Land and the buyer of his Karen restaurant—escalating his dispute with the East African Development Bank (EADB).
In his petition to the anti-graft agency, Tuju raised serious concerns regarding the conduct of five Supreme Court judges in executing their duties.
In complaints seen by The Eastleigh Voice, the former Rarieda MP asserted that Supreme Court judges have a solemn duty to uphold the rule of law, ensure fair trial proceedings, and protect the Constitution—and should not engage in obstruction of justice.
Tuju has even written a letter to Chief Justice Martha Koome, expressing his dissatisfaction with the conduct of Supreme Court judges.
Claiming that he legally acquired the disputed piece of land, Tuju alleged that the case against him is being driven by individuals under the guise of the bank. He accused the judges of bias and lacking impartiality in handling his case, arguing that they had repeatedly violated court procedures.
The matter has now placed the integrity of the Supreme Court under scrutiny. Governance and public law expert Willis Otieno believes the judges can only regain public confidence if they carry out their work without fear or favour.
“The courts must remain steadfast in defending the rule of law and delivering decisions aligned with the Constitution, regardless of the political inconvenience it may cause to some quarters,” said Otieno.
Supreme Court judges fight to retain their positions
The accusations against Supreme Court judges come at a time when they are also battling efforts to remove them from office. Last month, they moved to court to fight petitions seeking their removal.
Koome, her deputy Philomena Mwilu, and three other justices—Njoki Ndung’u, Mohamed Ibrahim, and Isaac Lenaola—have filed separate cases before the High Court against the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).
They are seeking to quash petitions filed by lawyer Nelson Havi, Tuju, and associates of lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi, who want them removed from office over alleged gross misconduct and incompetence.
The CJ has asked the High Court to overturn the JSC’s decision requiring her to respond to the petitions filed by Havi and Ahmednasir’s associates.
Mwilu has argued that only the High Court has the authority to determine whether a judge has violated a litigant’s rights.
The judges were responding to a JSC directive requiring them to respond to petitions regarding their recusal from a case filed by Tuju’s firm, Dari Limited, against the EADB, as well as a decision to bar Ahmednasir and his law firm from appearing before them.
Justice Koome told the court that the petitions seeking to remove her and her colleagues were an attempt to create a constitutional crisis by leaving a leadership vacuum in the apex court.
She further argued that the JSC had overstepped its authority by requiring her to respond to the petitions. She maintained that the commission was illegally acting as an appellate body over Supreme Court decisions.
Mwilu also contended that the JSC lacked the jurisdiction to hear petitions based on a litigant’s grievances. She asserted that no law allows for the removal of a judge based on complaints that they violated an individual’s rights while performing their judicial duties.
Meanwhile, Koome on Monday addressed growing concerns regarding public scrutiny, service delivery, and integrity within the Judiciary amid attempts to remove her and other Supreme Court judges from office.
She acknowledged that concerns have been raised not only about the Judiciary’s timelines and service delivery but also about the integrity of certain individuals within its ranks across the country. Koome described this as a moment of reckoning, offering an opportunity for deep reflection and reform.
“As judicial officers and judges, we find ourselves under trial and public scrutiny regarding how we manage cases and serve court users. Regrettably, there are renewed allegations of corruption in some of our court stations,” she said.
The CJ admitted that allegations of corruption within certain courts were concerning and could not be ignored.
Top Stories Today
