HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 664060,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/664060/?format=api",
"text_counter": 223,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "were sitting on broken seats. Magistrates sometimes had to adjourn to go to the bathrooms in the nearest town centres. The Judiciary did not even know how many cases were in the court system. Sixty five per cent of the Judiciary budget which stood at a meagre Kshs3 billion was taken up by about 53 judges. There was endemic institutional corruption, litigants were treated rudely and high courts were confined to the railway line, marginalizing large swathes of the Kenyan society. There was a spirit and culture of anti-intellectualism because judges argued that they could not be trained; and those who went for further studies on their own were punished. Some staff had served for over 20-25 years without attending a single training – none whatsoever and yet we expected first rate service from our registries. Over 80 per cent of our staff were Form Four graduates and we denied them training opportunities, paid them poorly, treated them with disdain and still expected excellent services. Mr. Speaker, Sir, and Hon. Members, staff did not have a medical insurance cover and many had stagnated in their job groups for over ten years. Their salaries were pathetic, sapping away the confidence of colleagues and completely disempowering them through a culture of fear, recrimination; using transfer of judges as punishment, not having basic management manuals in finance, human resources, gender, disability; being overrun and overseen by the Executive, compromising judicial independence and so on. Jurisprudentially, courts were shy to validate rights and all too often cowed to the whims of the Executive. Mechanical jurisprudence reigned; the jurisprudence of technicality menacingly stalked and policed our corridors of justice. Not anymore. This is what I found and I have tried to reverse, which is activism and progressiveness in full unapologetic splendor. Those who frown upon an independent Judiciary only do so - and this is important because I am talking to politicians - until they get into trouble, at which point, their language changes from profane condemnation to profuse celebration of independent and strong judges. Today, the Judiciary has changed significantly, in ways seen and unseen. First, the Judiciary has gallantly defended and protected the Constitution, even when it might have been politically convenient not to do so. Second, we have invested in reclaiming public confidence in the institution, through the public outreach programmes, establishing customer care desks and being friendly to litigants. But building public confidence is a daily grind as one incident in one court may influence perception of a very large and complex institution. Third, we have reduced case backlog from an estimated one million cases in 2011 to 420,000 in June 2016, and declining. Fourth, we have reasserted the independence of the Judiciary. Fifth, we have improved on the internal organisation of the Judiciary. This has been accomplished through a number of policies. We never used to induct judges or staff. These have and are being done. We have introduced performance contracting, improved staff welfare, promoted nearly 500 staff who had stagnated for as many as 10 to 15 years, revived a learning culture by reviving the Judiciary Training Institute, which used to hold less than five trainings in a year to the current 65. This is the same culture of learning that now privileges constructive engagement: An enlightened mind sure of its learning, coupled with a humble soul confident of its integrity spurs and stokes structured The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate"
}