Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 326064,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/326064/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 218,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "particularly, the 2008 post-election violence that occurred. At the time, it was very clear that this country suffered a crisis of confidence in its key institutions, particularly the Judiciary. This was brought about by years of misrule that eroded public confidence in the Judiciary. It also eroded the independence of this key institution. We know that with the coming in force of the new Constitution, judicial reforms have been some of the best reforms in this country so far. Long gone are the days of an overbearing Executive and a feeble Judiciary. Long gone are the days when the Judiciary would be starved of finances or funds and it would be at the mercy of the Executive. As we speak, we know that we now have in place a new Constitution. Article 160 states very clearly:- “In the exercise of judicial authority, the Judiciary, as constituted by Article 161, shall be subject only to this Constitution and the law and shall not be subject to the control or direction of any person or authority.” The Judiciary is, indeed, a core equal partner with all the other arms of Government and I would like to assure the House that this independence is being respected. The Judiciary has also a Judiciary Fund that has recently been operationalized. This will safeguard the independence of the Judiciary as it will be able to regulate its own administrative expenses, priorities and activities from the Fund which will be a direct charge from the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, we want to assure the House that so far, the Judiciary has done very well under the very able leadership of the Chief Justice, Dr. Willy Mutunga, and we expect that position not to change. In fact, on 19th of this month, the hon. Chief Justice will be inviting all of us for a first historic occasion where we will have the state of the Judiciary address which will be akin to what we have been seeing in other countries like the State of the Union Address by the US President. We will be addressed by the President of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice, on the State of the Judiciary and I believe that when he does - all Members will be invited to attend – we will be shown the state of the Judiciary as an independent, strong and vibrant institution which is different from what it was before. On the second issue, particularly of concern is the allegations made by the LSK. I believe they were quite grave because they touched on the Chief Justice. The claims attributed to the LSK questioned the impartiality of the Chief Justice and I believe that they were regrettable. This is because I am informed that the LSK has never formally written to the Judiciary over this issue and the hon. Chief Justice has never and has not interfered with the vetting process of judges. The hon. Chief Justice and his office have been very supportive of the vetting process. His office has provided the necessary support to the Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board. This includes provision of all files and documentation requested by the Board. He has also given access to officers of the Board to peruse any files they require. Administratively, the Vetting Board has no complaint. As of yesterday, I also spoke to the Chairman of the Board, Mr. Rao and they have no complaint against the Chief Justice. However, the Board has expressed concern with the decision in a Constitutional Petition No.11 of 2012 where the court granted an order of stay of the vetting process for period of 14 days. One of the judges who issued that order was himself due to be interviewed by the Board on 11th October. The order was issued despite the request by counsel that the judge should disqualify himself from the Bench and that the court should first determine the issue of whether it had the jurisdiction to hear the"
}