In a major development for Kenya’s legal system, the Supreme Court is challenging the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) over key issues impacting judicial independence. Justice Mugambi has called for an expanded panel to handle the sensitive matter.
Justice Mugambi Certifies the Case for Expanded Bench
On April 25, 2025, Justice Mugambi ruled that the petition filed by Chief Justice Martha Koome and other Supreme Court justices against the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) raises substantial constitutional issues.
Under Article 165(4) of Kenya’s Constitution, matters involving significant questions of law must be heard by a bench of at least three judges. Justice Mugambi stressed that this case directly affects judicial independence and the public interest, making a larger panel necessary.
Key Constitutional Questions Raised
Justice Mugambi highlighted several critical issues, including:
- Whether the JSC should filter out frivolous complaints before asking judges to respond.
- Whether handling complaints that are already in court violates judicial fairness.
- Whether collective petitions against all Supreme Court judges could illegally weaken the court.
He stated that these concerns strike at the heart of judicial independence, requiring serious judicial review to define the JSC’s powers and defend the judiciary’s strength.
Addressing Concerns on Bench Empanelling
Some parties objected to Chief Justice Koome selecting the bench while being a petitioner. However, Justice Mugambi applied the doctrine of necessity, explaining that the Constitution mandates the Chief Justice alone to empanel judges. No other authority can step in.
Therefore, to prevent a judicial deadlock, Koome must perform her duty. This ensures that the case moves forward without unnecessary delays.
Assurance of Impartiality
Justice Mugambi dismissed fears of bias, emphasizing that judges are bound by oath to uphold the law fairly.
He cited the Election Commission of India case to support the principle that in unavoidable circumstances, judicial action must proceed to uphold justice. He reassured that the appointed judges would act independently, without any undue influence.
Next Steps in the Case
The court ordered all parties to appear before the Deputy Registrar on May 6, 2025, to confirm whether the Chief Justice has empanelled the expanded bench.
This case promises to be a landmark moment for Kenya’s judiciary, setting important precedents on balancing judicial accountability and independence.
Do you believe the judiciary’s independence is at risk?
Like, share, and comment below to join the conversation! Stay updated by following us at #LegalExpressKenya.
Business
Justice Mugambi’s emphasis on impartiality is commendable, but I’m curious about the specific measures in place to ensure bias is truly minimized. The article mentions an oath, but are there other safeguards? It’s reassuring to hear judges are committed to fairness, yet public trust often hinges on transparency. I wonder if there’s room for more public engagement in understanding judicial processes. How does the judiciary plan to address lingering skepticism? Lastly, subscribing to updates is great, but does the newsletter include insights into judicial decisions or just news summaries? What’s your take on balancing transparency and judicial independence?