Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 69005,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/69005/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 436,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Committee subsequently proceeded to consider the two nominees after that initial objection was settled. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, in respect of Mrs. Florence Mwangangi, the Committee noted that she is a holder of a Degree in Law from the University of Nairobi. She has been in private legal practice since 1992, running a private law firm styled as M/s F.M. Mwangangi & Company Advocates. She has served on the Council of the Kenya Law Reporting between 2007 and 2009. She has also served as a member of the LSK Council between 2005 and 2007. The nominee has also attended educational seminars, both locally and internationally, in diverse fields, especially related to matters of human rights and the practice of law. Overall, based on the assessment of the Committee, this nominee was found to meet the basic requirement of academic and professional competence as well as apparent political non-partisanship. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me also draw the attention of the House to another important matter that came to the attention of the House while conducting this particular vetting. The Committee noted that the issue of a litigating advocate sitting on the Judicial Service Commission, while remaining in active legal practice would raise definite serious conflict of interest. The Committee noted that there was real potential of intimidation and undue influence should such a member appear before a judicial officer that is, by all interest and purposes, an employee of the Judicial Service Commission. This issue was further well ventilated in submissions made to the Committee by at least two senior practitioners of law. It should be noted that, indeed, all candidates forwarded by the LSK are in active legal practice. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me to put on record and to share with the House one of the opinions shared to the Committee by the law firm of Kaplan & Stratton. I quote one of the opinions they shared with the Committee as follows:- “While Article 171(2)(f) of the Constitution includes the composition of the membership of the Judicial Service Commission inter alia two advocates, each of whom has at least 15 years’ of experience elected by the LSK, it does not state whether or not such advocates should be in active practice of the law. I respectfully submit that in the course of implementing this provision, it will be imprudent to allow onto the membership of the Judicial Service Commission any advocate who has any interest in a firm which is in active practice. In my humble opinion, the reasons for such requirement are self evident. The functions and responsibilities of the Judicial Service Commission, under Article 172 of the Constitution, include recommending suitable candidates for appointment to judicial office, the review and recommendations on the conditions of service of judges and judicial officers, to appoint, receive complaints against, investigate and remove from office or otherwise, to discipline registrars, magistrates and other judicial officers and other staff of the Judiciary, and also the initiation either on its own motion or otherwise, of the process of the removal of a judge from judicial office. Let me turn to the process of a removal of a judge from judicial office. This provision places any member of the Judicial Service Commission in an exceptionally powerful position vis-à-vis a judicial officer on matters relating to such officers’ career. In the circumstances, it is probably not difficult to see how a practising advocate, who is also a JSC member, could ipso facto represent undue influence or pressure upon a serving judicial officer before whom the advocate appears or a matter in which he or she has an"
}