MPs abusing their powers in trying to supervise and interfere with Judiciary

It is outrageous for Parliament to try to micro-manage the Judiciary by trying to curtail the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) in exercising its administrative mandate of disciplining its own staff.

Instead, it is MPs’ conduct which deserves to be investigated for trying to extend their tribal, partisan, ethnic political considerations in the running of the Judiciary.

Why would Parliament only seem to have expected the JSC to determine former Chief Registrar Gladys Shollei’s case in a particular manner?

Does Parliament have powers to supervise and oversee the JSC, a constitutional commission, over its administrative mandate as an employer?

Is Parliament not abusing its legislative mandate? Where is the line separating the three arms of government – the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary?

Is Parliament trying to revert the clock now that the new Constitution envisaged a reformed, independent non-politicised Judiciary? Are we back to arm-twisting political games of the single party era?

INDEPENDENCE OUGHT TO BE RESPECTED

Why would MPs imagine that they can lord it over another arm of government which is supposed to be independent of political intrigues? What is so special about Mr Shollei when so many senior judicial officers have in the recent past lost their jobs without anyone raising a finger?

To me, the JSC was too accommodative to Mrs Shollei who should have been sacked a long time ago. She has had no respect for her employer, and at times used the most derogatory language when it was evident that she has not answered directly any of the allegations made against her.

Instead of dwelling on sideshows, she should have provided concrete answers to the allegations made.

True, Parliament can address issues to do with abuse of office by JSC commissioners (inclusive of the allowances saga), but why are all these complaints and petitions seeking to remove JSC members from office coming only now that the JSC has decided to take disciplinary action against Mrs Shollei?

In any case, why is Mrs Shollei complaining about the JSC now? Should such complaints be taken seriously when she herself received the same allowances she is complaining about?

The Judiciary should not be politicised. This is all the more reason why she should be sacked; she is playing politics with the Judiciary.

Had the JSC failed to sack her, bearing in mind how she conducted herself, coupled with the serious allegations against her which elicited no valid response, there would have been a justification for the disbandment of its own disbandment.

It was ridiculous for Mrs Shollei to suggest that the JSC cannot investigate her financial misconduct when it is her employer.

Instead she preferred to be investigated by the Treasury, Parliament and all other political offices where she seemed to be convinced she could be protected.

POLITICAL GAMES

If she wants to play politics then it is better she forgets about public service and runs for political office.

Mrs Shollei admits to the allegations that she received salary advances but her defence is too casual – that other judges received similar advances, as if two wrongs make a right.

The JSC should stand its ground. It is time major stakeholders in the Judiciary like the Law Society of Kenya came out openly and strongly fended off political aggression and interference in the Judiciary.

The few gains so far made in reforming the Judiciary are seemingly being rolled back by Parliament, which is meddling in simple internal disciplinary matters between the JSC and its staff.

As Parliament thumps its chest about how it wants to send the JSC home, the LSK should also be mobilising its members to fend off such uncalled-for interference.

The commissioners cannot become biased just because they have stood their ground and faulted Mrs Shollei over improprieties she is alleged to have committed.

Mr Sumba is an advocate of the High Court of Kenya. He also holds a Diploma in Journalism ([email protected]).