President Uhuru Kenyatta on Thursday approved the appointment of 34 new judges of the 41 proposed to him by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) in 2019.
In a gazette notice dated June 3, seven judges have been appointed to the Court of appeal, nine to the employment and labor relations court, and 18 to the environment and land court.
The head of state has rejected six nominees. They include; Aggrey Muchelule, George Odunga, Weldon Korir, and Prof Joel Ngugi who were recommended for the Court of Appeal.
Justices Ngugi and Odunga were part of the three-judge bench that declared the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) null and void.
The initial number of judges who received Uhuru’s approval was 41, but one person died.
The late lawyer Harrison Ogweno Okeche who died in October was among the nominees submitted to the president for appointment to the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
Judges approved for the Court of Appeal are Msagha Mbogholi, Hellen Omondi, Mumbi Ngugi, Francis Tuiyott, Pauline Nyamweya, Jessie Lesiit, and Imaana Laibuta.
Those appointed to the Employment and Labour Relations Court are Baari Christine Noontatua, Gakeri Jacob Kariuki, Keli Jemima Wanza, Mwaure Ann Ngibuini, Matanga Bernard Odongo Manani, Rutto Stella Chemtai, Kebira Ocharo, Kitiku Agnes Mueni-Nzei, and Nderitu David Njagi.
Those moving to the Environment and Land Court include; Mboya Oguttu Joseph, Naikuni Lucas Leperes, Mwanyale Michael Ngolo, Addraya Edda Dena, Kimani Lilian Gathoni, Kamau Joseph Mugo, Wabwoto Karoph Edward, and Koross Anne Yatich Kipingor.
Others are Gicheru Maxwell Nduiga, Mogeni Ann Jacqueline Akhalemesi, Ongarora Fred Nyagaka, Christopher Kyania Nzili, Mugo David Mwangi, Omollo Lynette Achieng’, Washe Emmanuel Mutwana, Nyukuri Annet, Murigi Theresa Wairimu, and Asati Esther.
Last year, former Chief Justice David Maraga said the president was to blame for the backlog in courts as he declined to appoint judges. “You know I have respect for you as our President, you also know that I have unsuccessfully sought an appointment with you to sort out these issues but it has been futile leaving me with no option but to make this public,” he said.
The Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association (KMJA) has criticized President Uhuru Kenyatta for omitting the names of six judges in his recent appointments.
The Head of State yesterday appointed 34 judges from a list of 41 recommended by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) nearly two years ago, rejecting the names of the six among them justices Joel Ngugi and George Odunga who were among a five-judge bench of the High Court that recently declared President Kenyatta’s pet project, the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) process, unconstitutional.
Fisherman in Kenya trade petroleum detachable engines for electric motors
Reacting to the recent appointments, KMJA Secretary-General Derrick Kuto termed the President’s move as unconstitutional.
“Once the JSC has recommended names for an appointment, the President has no power to tinker with the names. Any such attempt amounts to interference with the Institutional Independence of the JSC, violation of the Constitution and in particular, the rule of law which the President swore to uphold,” said Kuto.
“The decision by the President to leave out the six is therefore baffling, unfounded, and patently unconstitutional.”
He said that President Kenyatta is setting a very bad precedent for “this country, one of not following the rule of law and disobedience of court orders.”
The SG demanded that the President should correct the illegality by appointing the six judges as recommended by JSC immediately. “…KMJA calls upon the President to immediately gazette the six that were left out,” Kuto added.
The President has been under fire from a section of Kenyans online for rejecting the names of the six nominees.
Earlier, Katiba Institute filed a petition in the High Court to contest ‘cherry-picking’ of the 34 judges and the commission of the six nominees. In the application filed through lawyer Dudley Ochiel, the institution argues that Article 166( 1) commands the President to appoint judges of superior courts following the recommendation of JSC.
“Cherry-picking also illegally serves as a constructive removal of the nominees already as sitting judges. A fact which is both unconstitutional and highly stigmatizing” read the application.
“The cherry-picking and selective appointment or swearing-in of judges undermines the functions and powers of the Judicial Service Commission and the functioning of the Judiciary. It also is an improper extension of the role of the Executive and has created a constitutional crisis.”
The institution wants the court to issue an order stopping Chief Justice Martha Koome and the President from swearing in the 34 judges without the other six contrary to the recommendation of the JSC in 2019 pending a hearing of the application.
Also sought are orders barring the Chief Justice and the JSC from assigning duties to the 34 appointed judges.
Katiba Institute has moved to court seeking to block the swearing-in of the 34 judges appointed by President Uhuru Kenyatta.
In an application filed through lawyer Dudley Ochiel, the Institute argues that the move by the Head of State to appoint 34 judges and leave out 6 was undermining the judiciary and its independence.
For instance, the Institute cited Article 166( 1) 0f the Constitution which commands the President to appoint judges of superior courts following the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).
According to them, President Uhuru’s failure to give reasons for the commissions of the 6 judges is some form of judicial sabotage hence highly unconstitutional.
“Cherry-picking also illegally serves as a constructive removal of the nominees already as sitting judges. A fact which is both unconstitutional and highly stigmatizing” read the application in part.
It further adds, “The cherry-picking and selective appointment or swearing-in of judges undermines the functions and powers of the Judicial Service Commission and the functioning of the Judiciary. It also is an improper extension of the role of the Executive and has created a constitutional crisis.”
