DOCSLIB.ORG

KEG Submission on Judicial Independence and Accountability

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
KEG Submission on Judicial Independence and Accountability SUBMISSION TO THE JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY MAY 5TH, 2019 A CRY FOR JUSTICE In the media, we often say that unlike surgeons, we put our mistakes on the headlines. Surgeons bury theirs. We believe that the Judiciary’s work is in many ways like that of the media: All the decisions it makes, whether good or bad, must invariably be aired in public, and are thus open to scrutiny and criticism. We have been asked to present our views on Judiciary independence and accountability since promulgation of the new Constitution in 2010, based on our experiences, knowledge and observations. We approach this from the vantage point where we pay close scrutiny to what goes on in our courts, as court reporters and photographers, and as editors who edit the stories emanating from courts. Indeed, our observations get perspective from the period before the promulgation of the Constitution in 2010, to the subsequent establishment of the new-look Judiciary with the Supreme Court as the Apex Court. We reported on the legendary failings of the Judicial system, leading to the Task Force following the exit of the Kanu regime at the end of 2002 and the ‘Radical Surgery’ the following year led by Justice Aaron Ringera. Some 23 out of 45 Court of Appeal and High Court judges, and 82 of 254 magistrates were found to be implicated in corruption and other failings. They were given two weeks to resign over the ‘corruption virus’ or face tribunals to look into their conduct and suitability for office. They were indicted on corruption, laziness, incompetence, biased rulings, and histories of susceptibility to pressure from the State or willing collusion with political actors. That was in 2003. What has changed since then? Would we in 2019 be discussing Judiciary independence and accountability if Justice Ringera’s ‘Radical Surgery’ supported by then Chief Justice Evans Gicheru and Justice Minister Kiraitu Murungi had succeeded? As a matter of fact, nearly a decade after the ‘Radical Surgery’, we went through yet another judicial reform process. Under the new Constitution in 2010, Kenya established the Supreme Court with a judicial outsider, Dr Willy Mutunga, as the first President and Chief Justice. The new law also required vetting for all serving Judicial officers, under which many High Court and Appellate judges and magistrates were found unsuitable for office. After he took office, Chief Justice Mutunga initiated the Judiciary Transformation Framework, which identified four pillars of reform: • “People-centred” delivery of justice; • Improving organisational culture and professionalism; • Ensuring adequate infrastructure and resources; and • Making better use of information technology. The first pillar, focused on ensuring access to justice and public engagement, included such actions as establishing customer care desks, simplifying court procedures, creating a case management system, and strengthening complaint mechanisms. The second pillar focused on changing the Judiciary’s institutional culture, increasing training, and clarifying individuals’ responsibilities. The third and fourth pillars sought to expand the court system, to computerise its procedures, and to upgrade its IT infrastructure. We are aware that there is also the Judicial Performance Improvement Project (JPIP) designed to scale up and sustain stakeholder participation in the administration of justice and restore public confidence in the Judiciary. Key expected outcomes included: • Increasing access to courts and provision of legal information by reducing geographical distance to courts; improving links to court users and potential users and reducing knowledge barriers; • Improving timeliness of Judiciary services through the reduction of blockages in the registries; increasing efficiencies by having improved facilities; and increasing the speed of case resolution; • Enhancing performance and quality of decision making by increasing the use of standards and data in management of the Judiciary; improving consistency, clarity and strengthening integrity in decision making. It appears to us that since the Radical Surgery in 2003; onto the Judiciary Transformation Framework in 2012; the Judicial Performance Improvement Project which succeeded it and was supposed to end in 2018; and finally, the Committee on Judiciary Independence and Accountability, we are saying the same thing in different words. On matters of Judicial improvement, we seem to have been running on the spot since 2012. The language seems to cleverly ignore or minimise the real problems in the Judiciary: Corruption, sloth, incompetence, case backlog, and judgments based on cowing to State pressure or loyalty to ethno-political formations. Given the foregoing, therefore, the Kenya Editors’ Guild wishes to raise the following concerns: 1. In communication from the Chief Justice, the JSC, the Attorney-General and other organs, judicial reform or transformation is about the number of courthouses constructed, number of judicial officers employed, and other such brick and mortar outputs. There is very little seen in and talked about the transformation of the quality of service. The transformation we hail does not appear to have changed the culture of the Judiciary. It remains an opaque and distant institution for the ordinary citizen. • Indeed, there are very real perception problems about irrational and inconsistent sentencing, and existence of two scales of justice, one for the poor, and another for the rich and powerful. Many tales have been told of the chicken thief or pickpocket who gets a stiff jail term for a very minor offense; and the powerful and wealthy suspect accused of murder or grand corruption who manages to delay a case for ages and finally gets away with it. For example, Member of Parliament Joy Gwendo was sentenced to two years in jail by a magistrate’s court for defrauding Sh1.7 A CRY FOR JUSTICE – Submission to JSC on Judicial Independence and Accountability 2 million. However, a Judge set aside the jail term and substituted the jail term with a fine of Sh600,000. She ended up with a profit! Recently, a magistrate gave Samburu governor Sh150 million cash bail terming corruption as bad as murder. A judge immediately reduced that to Sh10 million. The case in Kenya of the ‘ChickenGate’ suspects is yet to take off. Those who paid them bribes in the UK have served their terms. The Samuel Gichuru-Chris Okemo case is still tied up in our courts. 2. The apparent ease with which politicians, members of the bench and members of the bar extract fairly high defamation awards, often with little regard to any jurisprudential standards and/or the need to promote media diversity is an affront on media freedom. While we do not advocate for irresponsible media, we believe penalties should be meted in a way that does not undermine the media’s role in our democracy. • In the Evan Gicheru case, the Court of Appeal held Ksh6 million as damages for the Chief Justice and said that no lawyer of whatever stature would exceed that of a Chief Justice. Since then, several courts have ignored this decision and made awards far higher than that for advocates and judicial officers. An example is the Ksh20 million the High Court awarded Justice Mukunya of the Employment & Labour Relations Court in total disregard of the Court of Appeal ruling. 3. Our experience is that the constitutional values of transparency and respect for the citizen are not borne out in the way that the Judiciary and all its staff, not just Judges, treat members of the public. In this regard, court reporters still find it extremely difficult to get information that is meant to be available in the court files, in total disregard to the public’s right to information. This has contributed to misreporting on court cases, sometimes based on reliance on information provided by interested parties. Registries that have been helpful include the Judicial Review & Constitutional Division as well as the Anti-Corruption Division. In most other stations, staff are hostile and often hide documents in cases of high public interest. That is akin to gagging media. Editors are concerned that interview requests from journalists to judges and magistrates are routinely ignored. Not even submitting formal requests through the registrars or the communication office has helped. • Even more shockingly, we have encountered instances were Judicial officers side with accused persons who are trying to evade media scrutiny, especially in corruption cases. A good example is when, recently, a magistrate summoned editors from both the Daily Nation and the Star newspapers over one of the NYS cases. Against Nation he complained of misreporting, and in the case of the Star, he questioned why a picture of an accused person was used instead of a different party mentioned by a witness. The magistrate wasted an entire morning session demanding to see editors rather than their legal representatives, and ended up adjourning the substantial case. 4. Lack of transparency also affects proceedings of the Judicial Service Commission, which are never relayed promptly to the media for reporting. Indeed, at the time of writing this submission there are JSC proceedings and decisions that remain shrouded in mystery and inaction despite them touching on grave matters such as independence of the Supreme Court. A CRY FOR JUSTICE – Submission to JSC on Judicial Independence and Accountability 3 5. Some of the bad old habits remain: Court proceedings still routinely begin late, usually not earlier than 9:30am. It some instances, one is left with the sense that there is a huge conspiracy by the judiciary and its sister agencies in the Administration of Justice against court users. In many stations, a magistrate or judge walking in an hour or two late is not strange. The Judiciary’s promise is at odds with what its customers actually experience. This shows a JSC that is yet to have a proper mechanism of supervision to ensure compliance with the regulations and work etiquette.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reflections from Kenya's 2010 Transformative Constitution
    Developing Progressive African Jurisprudence: Reflections from Kenya’s 2010 Transformative Constitution 2017 LAMECK GOMA ANNUAL LECTURE Lusaka, Zambia, July 27, 2017 Willy Mutunga1 Preliminary Remarks Chair of SAIPAR Members of the Institute I thank the Southern African Institute for Policy and Research (SAIPAR) for inviting me to give the PROFESSOR LAMECK GOMA ANNUAL LECTURE 2017. The late Professor Goma was a great scholar, the first Zambian Vice-Chancellor of the University of Zambia. He was also a great researcher and a patriotic public servant. 1 Dr. Willy Mutunga is the former Chief Justice of the Republic of Kenya and the President of the Supreme Court of Kenya. A major part of my remarks are taken from a speech I gave to Judges and guests of the Kenyan Judiciary on the occasion of the launching the Judiciary Transformation Framework on May 31, 2012. That speech has been published in the Socialist Lawyer: Magazine of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers. Number 65. 2013,20. The journey of my thoughts since then and now reflected in this Lecture owes a great debt of intellectual, ideological and political gratitude to the following mentors and friends: Professors Jill Ghai, Yash Ghai, Sylvia Tamale, Joel Ngugi, James Gathii, Joe Oloka-Onyango, Issa Shivji, Makau Mutua, Obiora Okafor, Yash Tandon, David Bilchitz, Albie Sachs, Duncan Okello, Roger Van Zwanenberg, and Shermit Lamba. My Law Clerks at the Supreme of Kenya, namely, Atieno Odhiambo, Sam Ngure and Maxwell Miyawa helped with research. The theme of this Lecture is drawn
    [Show full text]
  • Governance Assessment Kenya 2016.Pdf
    GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT KENYA: JANUARY 2013 – JULY 2016 Kenya: Governance Assessment GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT Kenya: January 2013 – July 2016 Roland Ebole and Morris Odhiambo1 1 Introduction This report focuses on politically significant developments in Kenya from 2013, when the country held its first general elections under the 2010 constitution. The constitution is considered to have markedly enhanced protection of basic rights, significantly constrained executive power, and provides limited devolution of powers across 47 newly created county governments.2 In 2013, Kenya held its first general election under the 2010 constitution. Kenyans cast their votes for president, national and county-level representatives, female representatives to the National Assembly, and governors. With 50.5% of the vote, Uhuru Kenyatta of the National Alliance (TNA), backed by the Jubilee Alliance, won the presidency. His opponent, Raila Odinga of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), backed by the Coalition for Reforms and Democracy (CORD), was second with 43.7%. The election of governors and local assemblies strengthened the position of county governments. Female representatives to the National Assembly were elected in all 47 counties3 while 16 more were nominated to the Senate.4 Following the vote, CORD and a civil society organization (CSO) challenged the outcome of the presidential election at the Supreme Court,5 which had only 14 days to consider their petition under the constitution.6 Moreover, the pay scale for members of parliament set by the Salaries and Remuneration Commission was rejected by legislators, forcing the SRC to approve higher salaries.7 Implementation of the constitution and additional reforms continued, including the vetting of police officers by the National Police Service Commission (NPSC) and scrutiny of judges and magistrates by the Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board (JMVB).
    [Show full text]
  • Judging the Judges: Who Are the Supreme Court Justices?
    By Apollo Mboya If there is a jurisdiction that the Justices of the Supreme Court of Kenya curse is the court’s exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine presidential election petitions. It is both legal and political but politics reign supreme. In a highly divided country, the court will be doomed whichever way it rules. Former Chief Justice Dr. Willy Mutunga, conscious of the impact of “political jurisdiction” on the courts, expressed his frustrations in a public forum that courts ought not handle election disputes but instead politicians should “deal with their own shit” elsewhere. In his dissenting opinion in Bush v. Gore, Justice Stevens, underscoring CJ Mutunga’s thinking sympathized with the Supreme Court of the United States and indeed the judiciary following the highly disputed 2001 election dispute between George Bush and Al Gore opining as follows: Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. Although SCOTUS does not have exclusive jurisdiction on presidential election dispute as Kenya’s, Bush v. Gore has been the court’s sore thumb that is thought to have led to a “court generated president”. Erwin Chemerinsky in his book The Case Against the Supreme Court notes: Bush v. Gore obviously cost the Supreme Court in terms of credibility. More than forty-nine million people who voted for Al Gore, and likely almost all of them regard the Court’s decision as a partisan ruling by a Republican majority [judges] in favour of the Republican candidate.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a Rule of Law Culture: Practical Guide
    TOWARD A RULE OF LAW CULTURE Exploring Effective Responses to Justice and Security Challenges PRACTICAL GUIDE Leanne McKay TOWARD A RULE OF LAW CULTURE Exploring Effective Responses to Justice and Security Challenges PRACTICAL GUIDE Written by Leanne McKay and edited by Adewale Ajadi and Vivienne O’Connor With contributions by Adewale Ajadi, Diane de Gramont, Hamid Khan, Rachel Kleinfeld, George Lopez, Tom Parker, and Colette Rausch UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE Washington, D.C. United States Institute of Peace 2301 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20037 www.usip.org © 2015 by the Endowment of the United States Institute of Peace. All rights reserved. First published 2015 To request permission to photocopy or reprint materials for course use, contact the Copyright Clearance Center at www.copyright.com. For print, electronic media, and all other subsidiary rights e-mail [email protected] Printed in the United States of America The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standards for Information Science—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. This guide is available in English, Arabic, and French at www.usip.org. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Institute of Peace. ii TOWARD A RULE OF LAW CULTURE A RULE OF LAW TOWARD Contents List of Figures .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Justice Systems Baseline Policy, 2020
    AlternativeALTERNATIVE JUSTICE SYSTEMS FRAMEWORKJustice SystemsPOLICY Baseline Policy traditional, informal and other mechanisms used to access justice in kenya (alternative justice systems) August 2020 Copyright © Judiciary of Kenya, 2020 Published by The Judiciary of Kenya P.O. Box 30041 - 00100, Nairobi Tel. +254 20 2221221 First edition: August 2020 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the author or acknowledging the source except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review. Cover photo: Allan Gichigi/UNODC Design and layout: Amina Darani/UNODC This publication was produced with technical assistance from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and with the financial support of the European Union through the Programme for Legal Empowerment and Aid Delivery in Kenya (PLEAD). Its contents are the sole responsibility of the Judiciary of Kenya and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union or UNODC. JUSTICE AS FREEDOM1: TR ADITIONAL, INFORMAL AND OTHER MECHANISMS FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN KENYA August 2020 Alternative Justice Systems Baseline Policy 1 This phrase is borrowed from Amartya Sen,Development as Freedom (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999). Accord- ing to Sen (at page 3), development should not be gauged solely from an economic perspective or opportunities that any project is likely to create. Rather, we need to take a transformative approach. This perspective entails reviewing also rights that any initiative promotes or curtails. Aligning AJS Mechanisms and Judiciary to the Constitution of Kenya (2010) and The Judiciary’s Blueprint for Sustaining Judicial Transformation TASK FORCE ON THE TR ADITIONAL, INFORMAL AND OTHER MECHANISMS FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN KENYA Letter of transmittal Date: Friday, 17th August, 2020 Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • MAU MAU in NATIONAL and INTERNATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS by Macharia Munene Introductory Remarks It Is Possible to Look at Mau Mau Co
    MAU MAU IN NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS By Macharia Munene Introductory Remarks It is possible to look at Mau Mau consciousness in terms of two overlapping phases of the Colonial and Post-colonial periods, represented by seminal publications which show the power of books to shape thinking and public consciousness. In the colonial period were Jomo Kenyatta’s 1938 Facing Mount Kenya, the Corfield Report in 1960. In the Post-Colonial period were John Nottingham’s The Myth of Mau Mau soon after independence, and Caroline Elkins’ 2005 Imperial Reckoning/Britain’s Gulag. Each represents a phase of consciousness with regard to the Mau Mau War and can be divided into the following segments: a. The Colonial Setting b. The shock of the Mau Mau War outbreak c. The attempted destruction of Mau Mau Consciousness d. Post-colonial ignoring or effort to rearrange Mau Mau Consciousness e. Limited revival of Consciousness The Attraction The attraction to Mau Mau consciousness is partly because there probably was no challenge to the European colonial state in Africa that captured as much global attention as the Mau Mau War in Kenya against the British and the Algerian War against the French.1 The Mau Mau War was bitter and the benefits did not always accrue to those who bore the brunt of the war.2 A few fighters benefited, but the rest appear to have been neglected. In contrast, those who had opposed the war or supported British colonialists seemingly benefited most, continue to benefit, and a feeling of betrayal cropped up that is often the subject of many debates.
    [Show full text]
  • A Journal of African Studies
    UCLA Ufahamu: A Journal of African Studies Title Front Matter Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7rw7c61p Journal Ufahamu: A Journal of African Studies, 12(1) ISSN 0041-5715 Author n/a, n/a Publication Date 1982 DOI 10.5070/F7121017181 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California U F A H A M U AFRICAN ACTIVIST ASSOCIATION AFRICAN S~JDIES CENTER UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024 Editor-in-Chief: Kyalo Mativo Editorial Board: Kofi Afriyie, C. Orlando X. Bonner, Marc Arthur Chery, Pierre Hermann L. m!sir, Fassil Demissie, Steve Harmon, Dovi Kuevi, Jacqueline Magro, Olusegun Oyekunle. Production Editor: Anita Pfouts Editorial Advisory Board: J. Ndukaku Amankulor, !.N.C. Aniebo, Louis D. Armmand, Kandioura Drame, Teshome H. Gabriel, Niko M. Ngwenyama, Edward C. Okus, Renee Poussiant, Kipkorir Aly Rana, Nancy Rutledge. Technical Advisor: Alice McGaughey CONTRIBUTIONS UFAHAMU will accept contributions from anyone interested in Africa and related subject areas. Contributions may include scholarly articles, political-economic analyses, commentaries, film and book reviews and freelance prose and poetry. Manuscripts may be of any length, but those of 15-25 pages are preferred. (All manuscripts must be clearly typed, double­ spaced originals with footnotes gathered at the end. Contributors should endeavor to keep duplicate copies of all their manuscripts.) The Editorial Board reserves the right to abbreviate any manuscript in order to fit page requirements. All correspondence--manuscripts, subscriptions, books for review, inquiries, etc.,--should be addressed to the Editor-in­ Chief at the above address. SUBSCRIPTIONS Individuals in U.S . and Canada $8.00/volume(3 issues);~ $3.50/issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Kenya's Judiciary Through Three Presidential Election Petitions
    60 Days of Independence: Kenya’s Judiciary Through Three Presidential Election Petitions By Special Correspondent Independence Day On the morning of 1 September 2017, Kenya entered the annals of history as only the fourth country in the world to annul a presidential election. Before that, courts in only Ukraine, the Maldives and Austria had annulled presidential elections. No opposition party in Africa had ever successfully petitioned a court to overturn an election, and the decision was praised globally as striking a blow for democracy and the rule of law. “Look, in view of all that evidence, and in good conscience, what other decision would I have made and how would I have looked?” the Chief Justice remarked. Outside the courtroom later, as the majority decision and the two dissenting opinions were read out and broadcast live, the crowds erupted into celebration. From inside the building, it felt as if a bomb had gone off. The judiciary had finally come of age, judicial independence had been attained. In the days that followed, judicial officers discussed on their social media pages how they were retaking their oaths of office. Erstwhile critics in the Internet fever swamps were suddenly gushing with praise for the judiciary. President Uhuru Kenyatta was visibly angry. He had expected the court challenge on his victory to suffer the same fate as the challenge to his 2013 election victory and plans for his swearing in were already in top gear. The day before the Supreme Court decision Kenyatta had even made disparaging remarks about waiting for what some six people would decide regarding the election, and a false news alert on the Kenyatta family-owned K24 TV had implied that the petitioners had lost the case even before the judgment had come in.
    [Show full text]
  • Kenya Country Report BTI 2014
    BTI 2014 | Kenya Country Report Status Index 1-10 5.76 # 59 of 129 Political Transformation 1-10 6.55 # 49 of 129 Economic Transformation 1-10 4.96 # 81 of 129 Management Index 1-10 4.87 # 68 of 129 scale score rank trend This report is part of the Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Transformation Index (BTI) 2014. It covers the period from 31 January 2011 to 31 January 2013. The BTI assesses the transformation toward democracy and a market economy as well as the quality of political management in 129 countries. More on the BTI at http://www.bti-project.org. Please cite as follows: Bertelsmann Stiftung, BTI 2014 — Kenya Country Report. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2014. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. BTI 2014 | Kenya 2 Key Indicators Population M 43.2 HDI 0.519 GDP p.c. $ 1765.5 Pop. growth1 % p.a. 2.7 HDI rank of 187 145 Gini Index 47.7 Life expectancy years 60.4 UN Education Index 0.584 Poverty3 % 67.2 Urban population % 24.4 Gender inequality2 0.608 Aid per capita $ 40.4 Sources: The World Bank, World Development Indicators 2013 | UNDP, Human Development Report 2013. Footnotes: (1) Average annual growth rate. (2) Gender Inequality Index (GII). (3) Percentage of population living on less than $2 a day. Executive Summary Kenya is experiencing significant changes in its institutional and political configuration as the country goes through the process of implementing its 2010 constitution. This constitution brings about numerous fundamental changes, some of which have started to take shape while others have been delayed and/or undermined.
    [Show full text]
  • Journey to Gender Parity in Political Representation
    Primary Logo Journey to Gender Parity in Political Representation Search of a framework for the realisation of the not more than two-thirds gender principle in Kenya Journey to Gender Parity in Political Representation Search of a framework for the realisation of the not more than two-thirds gender principle in Kenya 2012-2018 The Journey Continues Primary Logo Published by National Gender and Equality Commission Headquarters Solution Tech Place, 1st Floor, Longonot Road, Upper Hill, next to Crowne Plaza Hotel P.O. BOX 27512-00506, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254 2(20)-272-7778/+254 (20) 3213199 www.ngeckenya.org Twitter: @NGECKENYA www.facebook.com/NGECKenya Toll Free Line: 0800720187 SMS: 20459 Kisumu Office Reinsurance Plaza, 3rd Floor, Wing B, Oginga Odinga Street Nakuru Office Tamoh Plaza, 1st Floor, Kijabe Street P.O. BOX 15263-401, NAKURU Garissa Office Opposite Care International Offices, Garissa town Malindi Office Malindi Complex, off Lamu-Malindi Road Malindi town Kitui Office Nzambani Park, off Kitui Referral Hospital Road Kitui town ©2018 Table of Contents Abbreviations iv Foreword vi Acknowledgements viii 1.0 BACKGROUND 1 1.1 Journey towards realisation of the not more than two-thirds gender principle in 4 elective positions in Parliament: A synopsis 1.2 The move to seek Advisory Opinion from the Supreme Court 5 2.0 TECHNICAL WORKING COMMITTEE (TWG) 8 2.1 Stakeholders Engagement 12 2.2 Meetings with the Departmental Committee on Justice Legal Affairs chaired by Hon. 13 Samuel Chepkonga 2.3 Consultation with the Senate Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights 14 2.4 The process leading to publication of Bill to give effect to the proposal by TWG 14 2.4.1 The cost of implementing the not more than two-thirds gender principle 14 2.4.2 Development of communication and lobbying strategy 15 2.4.3 Launch of the ‘Tubadili Tusitawi Pamoja’ campaign 15 2.4.4 KEWOPA intervention 15 2.4.5 The Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • (Pil) Under the 2010 Constitution of Keny
    UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI SCHOOL OF LAW JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) UNDER THE 2010 CONSTITUTION OF KENYA A RESEARCH THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS CANDIDATE: INGONGA RENSON MULELE REG. NO: G62/88438/2016 SUPERVISOR: DR BETT DATE: NOVEMBER 2017 i DECLARATION This project is my original work and it has not been submitted and it is not currently being submitted for a degree in any University or institution. Name: INGONGA RENSON MULELE Registration No: G62/88438/2016 Signature ……………………………………………………………………………………….. Date…………………………………………………………………………………………….. This thesis has been submitted for review and approval as the University supervisor. Name: DR JACKSON BETT Department: ……………………………………………………………………………… Signature…………………………………………………………………………………… Date……………………………………………………………………………………… ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to pass my gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Jackson Bett for the enthusiastic, invaluable comments and guidance he gave in my effort to complete this research proposal. Special gratitude goes to my wife Perister, daughter Steffi and son Trevor for their encouragement and inspiration throughout my entire master‟s program. Thanks to the Most High God for strengthening me and giving me good health and opportunity to successfully complete my master‟s program. iii DEDICATION I dedicate this project to my guardian/parents Aggrey Shitsama and the late Margaret Shitsama iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Transforming the Courts: Judicial Sector Reforms in Kenya, 2011-2015
    TRANSFORMING THE COURTS: JUDICIAL SECTOR REFORMS IN KENYA, 2011–2015 SYNOPSIS When Willy Mutunga became Kenya’s chief justice in 2011, he made reductions in judicial delay and corruption top priorities. Drawing on previous plans to fix the same issues, Mutunga and his team developed a far-reaching reform program: the Judiciary Transformation Framework. Their goals included addressing administrative problems that had hindered citizens’ access to justice and opening up a historically closed institution to public engagement. Judges, magistrates, and court staff helped court registrars standardize and speed up administrative processes. Early efforts to introduce new technologies that would reduce delays—one of Kenya’s 2012–14 Open Government Partnership commitments—failed to achieve nationwide implementation. But the newly created Performance Management Directorate developed a case-tracking system that facilitated nationwide monitoring of delays and workloads. The newly established Office of the Judiciary Ombudsperson and strengthened Court Users’ Committees opened lines of communication for citizens to register complaints, suggest changes, and receive responses. Although many reforms were in early stages in 2015, Mutunga and his team developed and enacted policies that changed the ways the judiciary served the Kenyan public. Maya Gainer drafted this case study based on interviews conducted in Nairobi, Kenya, in September and October 2015. Case published November 2015. INTRODUCTION leaders, but few would dispute his assessment. In October
    [Show full text]