Kenya’s Judiciary has been ridiculed by the citizenry in recent months owing to controversial judgments. Many believe the institution to be compromised and its decisions are influenced by the executive.
CJ Martha Koome said recently,
“I want to assure Kenyans that Supreme Court Judges are politically neutral and are concerned with only determining the legal and evidential issues before the Court.”
However, prominent lawyers and experts have argued that justice in Kenya goes to the highest bidder, and in most political cases, juice and proximity to power are the ultimate decider.
The ruling on Gachagua’s case paving the way for Kindiki’s swearing-in, and the recent passing of the Finance Bill 2023 by the Supreme Court are some of the major decisions that have had lawyers and other Kenyans questioning the sobriety of the highest court in the land.
Prominent lawyer, Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi criticized the Supreme Court Rulings saying,
“Kenya is finished. The Supreme Court has sold us cheaply to the government. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 10 on national values is unenforceable against the government of Kenya.”
In the said ruling on the 2023 Finance Bill case, the Supreme Court stated that;
“Courts should be careful to distinguish between values and principles on one hand, and normative rules on the other hand, to avoid overprescribing duties from principles and values which are nature open-textured…It follows that the values and principles are optimizing commands that allow duty bearers to come up with suitable measures for the fulfillment of the obligations that they impose, without dictating definitive or specific actions that they ought to take.”
This is an alarming conclusion as most experts point out. Treating national values as just ‘guiding frameworks’ weakens accountability and transparency in Kenya. These principles are not optional; they are core to protecting the public from unchecked government power.
The judiciary had temporarily halted the implementation of President Ruto’s 2023 Finance Act, particularly its controversial Housing Levy.
Critics argued this act bypassed legislative safeguards, and while the judiciary’s decision protected citizens’ financial interests, it also drew backlash from the executive, with officials questioning the judiciary’s role in blocking government policies. Could the Supreme Court’s decision to carry the act have been influenced?
Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua’s impeachment has raised significant debate around judicial independence in Kenya. The High Court, with Justices Eric Ogola, Anthony Mrima, and Fridah Mugambi presiding, upheld the legality of a bench appointed by Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, who acted in place of Chief Justice Martha Koome.
Gachagua’s defense team argued that only the Chief Justice held the authority for such an appointment, but the court cited constitutional guidelines allowing the DCJ to make administrative decisions in her stead.
President Ruto’s involvement, including his petition to dismiss Gachagua’s challenge on grounds that a sitting president cannot face civil proceedings, intensified public scrutiny.
Analysts view this case as indicative of potential executive influence, reflecting broader concerns over the judiciary’s autonomy in politically sensitive matters.
Read Also: All Bark and No Bite, a Limp Judiciary
