Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 1121410,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1121410/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 155,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Omogeni",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13219,
        "legal_name": "Erick Okong'o Mogeni",
        "slug": "erick-okongo-mogeni"
    },
    "content": "continue to dispense justice as judges of the High Court of Kenya with this kind of blanket condemnation facing them. The other observation we made was that it is inhuman to continue condemning these judges unheard, while they continue serving as judicial officers. The judges risk suffering serious reputation risk on account of their continued non-appointment. What do you think is in the minds of litigants who appear before these judges as they continue reading these reports in the newspapers, that these judges and the two magistrates have never been appointed because they have some integrity issues? Remember this matter has been pending for the last two years. We have made an observation that to the judges who have not been appointed, what we are subjecting them to is tantamount to psychological torture which is against our Constitution. This is more so taking to account the period that this matter has been pending. We are appealing to the President to look for a solution out of this impasse. If there are any credible allegations against these judicial officers, then the most decent thing to do is to forward those allegations to the JSC so that the process of removing these judges, if at all, can be commenced. This is because there is no any other way you can deal with a judge who is in office other than making a complaint before the JSC. The process of initiating a removal is captured under Article 168(3), of our Constitution. It says - “A petition by a person to the Judicial Service Commission under clause (2) shall be in writing, and must set out the alleged facts constituting the grounds for the Judges removal.” That is what we are saying in our report. Anybody who wants these judges investigated, for whatever reasons must set out these facts in writing so that these judges are confronted with these allegations and given an opportunity to respond. Article 4 says it is the JSC that has the final say. Even if anybody was to file a complaint to the JSC, again the JSC must sit, consider the merit of the allegations and them make a decision, whether it warrants the setting up of a tribunal. This is captured in Article 168(4) - “The Judicial Service Commission shall consider the petition and, if it is satisfied that the petition discloses a ground for removal under clause (1), send the petition to the President.” It must be satisfied. You can have allegations or think that particular judges ought to be removed. However, it is up to JSC to be satisfied that the grounds being presented warrant the setting up of a tribunal to remove a judge. Unless these processes have been invoked, these judges will continue to enjoy security of tenure. Another thing we have observed is that when Kenyans enacted their Constitution in 2010, they expected that anybody who is given a task, an obligation to perform a certain task, will perform that task within a reasonable period. This is captured in Article 259(8) and it says - “If a particular time is not prescribed by this Constitution for performing a required act, the act shall be done without unreasonable delay, and as often as occasion arises.”"
}