Rule of Law at Risk: Civil Society Condemns Retaliation Against Judiciary.

      Nairobi, March 12, 2025 

 A coalition of civil society organizations has raised alarm over sustained political attacks on Kenya’s Judiciary, warning that such actions threaten democracy and the rule of law. In a joint press statement released in Nairobi, the organizations condemned increasing interference in judicial affairs, including retaliatory measures against judges, attempts to delegitimize court decisions, and calls for the removal of Supreme Court justices.

The Judiciary has recently faced mounting pressure from the Executive and parts of the political class, with accusations of “judicial overreach” following court rulings that have nullified elections, overturned government appointments, and suspended controversial state policies. Civil society groups argue that while accountability within the Judiciary is necessary, recent actions against judges suggest a deliberate effort to undermine judicial independence.

The Judiciary’s independence is enshrined in Kenya’s Constitution as a safeguard against abuse of power by the Executive and Parliament. However, political interference, allegations of corruption, and operational challenges have contributed to a growing trust deficit. A December 2024 Infotrak public perception survey revealed that 57% of Kenyans do not trust the Judiciary, with only 34% expressing moderate confidence in its ability to deliver justice. Delays in court rulings, inconsistent judicial decisions, and bribery allegations have fueled public skepticism, making it easier for political actors to rally against the Judiciary.

Relations between the Judiciary and the Executive have remained strained since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in 2017 to nullify the presidential election. Since then, Kenyan courts have repeatedly ruled against the government on various matters, including nullifying elections, blocking illegal appointments, and halting state-led initiatives. The Executive has responded by accusing the Judiciary of overstepping its mandate, often refusing to comply with unfavorable rulings.

Recent retaliatory actions have further deepened tensions. The withdrawal of security for Justice Lawrence Mugambi following his ruling in a contempt case against the then Acting Inspector-General of Police was widely perceived as an act of intimidation. In January 2025, security was also withdrawn for Chief Justice Martha Koome, raising concerns that the government was using coercion to pressure judicial officers. “These sustained attacks appear to be part of a broader strategy to intimidate and delegitimize the Judiciary,” the statement from civil society groups read. “An independent Judiciary is critical for upholding the rule of law, and any attempts to weaken it must be strongly resisted.”

One of the most significant challenges facing the Judiciary is the attempt to remove Chief Justice Martha Koome and six other Supreme Court judges. Multiple petitions have been filed with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), accusing them of gross misconduct and incompetence. However, the judges have challenged the JSC’s authority to review Supreme Court decisions, leading to legal battles that have halted the process. Courts in Nairobi and Narok have issued interim orders suspending further action on the petitions until these constitutional issues are resolved. Civil society organizations have warned that while accountability within the Judiciary is important, it should not be used as a political tool to influence judicial decisions.

Eric Mukoya, Executive Director of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) Kenya, emphasized the need for judicial accountability to be pursued in a lawful and fair manner. “The Judiciary is not beyond scrutiny, but accountability must be exercised through constitutional processes, not political intimidation. If we allow political forces to dictate which judges stay and which ones go, we risk compromising the integrity of our entire justice system,” Mukoya stated.

While defending judicial independence, the civil society groups also acknowledged the need for greater transparency and ethical conduct within the Judiciary. They emphasized that the Judiciary must uphold the highest standards of integrity to regain public trust. “Judicial officers must perform their duties in an impartial and transparent manner. Court decisions should be well-reasoned, publicly accessible, and subject to fair appeal procedures,” the statement noted. “An independent Judiciary does not mean judges should be beyond scrutiny, but accountability must be exercised through due process rather than political intimidation.”

The organizations urged the Judiciary to strengthen complaints mechanisms and disciplinary processes to address allegations of corruption and misconduct. They also called for increased budgetary support to address resource constraints that have led to case backlogs and inefficiencies in the justice system.

With Kenya’s 2027 General Election approaching, civil society organizations stressed the Judiciary’s crucial role in electoral dispute resolution. The Supreme Court holds exclusive jurisdiction over presidential election petitions, making it a critical institution in safeguarding electoral integrity. Currently, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) has sought an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court regarding several electoral matters, including whether the IEBC can review constituency and ward boundaries despite the expiration of constitutional timelines and whether constitutional provisions allow for an extension of these timelines under exceptional circumstances.

The civil society groups warned that any disruption to the Judiciary, particularly attempts to remove Supreme Court judges, could destabilize the electoral process and weaken Kenya’s democratic framework. “The Supreme Court must remain intact to ensure fair and impartial adjudication of electoral disputes,” the statement emphasized. “Any attempts to interfere with the Judiciary ahead of the elections risk undermining public confidence in the electoral process.”

In their concluding remarks, the civil society organizations urged all stakeholders—including the Executive, Parliament, legal professionals, and the public—to defend judicial independence while upholding judicial accountability. “The Judiciary is the last line of defense for the rule of law in Kenya,” the statement read. “While we must demand transparency and ethical conduct from judicial officers, we must also resist any attempts to turn the Judiciary into a political battleground.”

The organizations called for an end to politically motivated attacks on judges, respect for court rulings, and strict adherence to the Constitution in handling judicial accountability. They also appealed to Kenyans to remain vigilant in protecting the country’s democratic institutions. As the debate over judicial independence and accountability continues, the future of Kenya’s democracy may well depend on striking the delicate balance between safeguarding the Judiciary’s autonomy and ensuring it remains a pillar of integrity in governance.