JSC under the spotlight over delay in removal of judges

Chief Justice David Maraga, joined by other members of the Judicial Service Commission, addresses journalists at the Supreme Court on March 20, 2019. The JSC is investigating misconduct claims filed against judges. PHOTO | FILE | NATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • The complaints against them range from corruption to inordinate delay in delivering judgments, bias and partiality and conflict of interest.
  • If the JSC is satisfied that complaints have ground for the removal of a judge, it will send it to the President for the formation of a tribunal to probe the judge.

Members of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) are under immense pressure after finalising a report in which they recommend the removal of three judges known to be influential at their work stations.

The JSC, which has been meeting regularly, is said to have recommended the formation of tribunals to probe the judges.

But the decision to release the report to the public has been delayed due to external pressure, the Nation has learnt.

The commissioners are said to be divided over the recommendation with some feeling that they might end up injuring the integrity of the Judiciary rather than cleaning up its image.

While the decision to recommend the removal of Justice Jackton Boma Ojwang’ was hurriedly arrived at in about a week, JSC has for unknown reasons taken long to release the verdict on the other judges.

COMPLAINTS

The commission has been listening to 31 disciplinary cases facing judges. The cases involve Supreme Court judges Ojwang’, who has since been suspended and a tribunal formed to investigate his conduct and that of Justice Njoki Ndung’u.

Others who have appeared before the JSC to respond to various accusations are D.K Njagi, Edward Muriithi, Martin Muya, Thripsisa Cherere, Mary Muthoni Gitumbi, Lucy Waithaka, Amin Farah, James Wakiaga and former High Court principal judge Richard Mwongo.

One of the judges, who is set to be recommended for removal, failed to honour summons to appear personally.

The complaints against them range from corruption to inordinate delay in delivering judgments, bias and partiality and conflict of interest.

The judges have proposed fellow judges as witnesses, while others have proposed to call litigants who were battling with persons who have accused them.

GRAFT

During his defence, Justice Wakiaga called three of his fellow judges: Richard Mwongo, Joram Abuodha and Joseph Sergon as well as two magistrates, Wilbroda Juma and Vincent Nyakundi, as his witnesses.

Ms Juma was the chief magistrate in Nyeri where Justice Wakiaga was serving, while Mr Nyakudi was the deputy registrar in Nyeri.

Justice Wakiaga has been accused of corruption by a woman called Shumi Wairimu Abubakar.

Justice Mwongo was accused by members of Kenya Methodist Church whereas Kaplan and Stratton filed a complaint against Justice Marete.

Justice Gitumbi is accused of inordinate delay in delivering a ruling in a land case.

The law firm alleged that Judge Marete was biased and partial in a case involving the Kenya Plantations and Agricultural Workers Union.

TRIBUNAL

If the JSC is satisfied that complaints have ground for the removal of a judge, it will send it to the President for the formation of a tribunal to probe the judge.

Justice Ndung’u refused to appear before the tribunal and instead sent her lawyer, Mr Mukite Musangi.

Mr Musangi was the Jubilee Party National Elections Board chairman. When he appeared before the JSC, the commissioners asked him to come with his client. But she declined to appear before the commission.

In their last determination, the commissioners recommended the removal of Justice Ojwang after he declined to appear before them.

Justice Ndung’u is accused of irregularly withdrawing her services from serving the people when, together with justices Ojwang and Philip Tonui, they said that they could not be available to listen to a matter concerning preparations for the 2017 General Election.

Justice Tonui retired from the Judiciary just before recommendations of a tribunal set to investigate him for misconduct were made public.