The Chief Justice, Martha Koome, gave an explanation for her decision to meet with President William Ruto in light of the Executive Branch’s ongoing attacks on the judiciary.

Koome moved quickly to satisfy concerns that the meeting did not compromise the judiciary’s independence.

Koome justified her choice to meet with the President, arguing that their conversation did not compromise judicial independence and instead focused on issues hindering the administration of justice. The meeting included all of the judges and heads of court in Naivasha.

A group of Kenyans led by opposition leader Raila Odinga has attacked Koome, claiming that by consenting to meet with the president, she compromised the independence of the judiciary.

Raila described Koome’s meeting with Ruto as an irresponsible action during his speech in Lamu West constituency last month, following the State House meeting.

Koome insisted Monday that she would not put up with any talks aimed at dictating how the courts should handle cases, even as she emphasized the interconnectedness of the three arms of government.

The three-day conference, which began on Monday, is anticipated to give the judges a forum to conduct an assessment of the Judiciary’s operations and determine what steps should be taken to raise accountability, boost performance, and enable seamless service delivery.

With recent events placing judges’ roles in the public eye, the meeting, which wraps up today (Wednesday), comes at a crucial time for the judiciary.

But the CJ demanded more research and analysis of how courts handle matters pertaining to public policy and interest.

She focused her challenge on the hearing schedules and identifying cases that pertain to government programs, since the dates of hearings are frequently scheduled well in advance of the cases’ filing dates.

Speaking to the judges, the CJ stressed how important it was to find out if the courts actively managed instances of public interest while also respecting the decision-making authority of the judges in public interest cases.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here