Bold strides to erase bottlenecks in law

In the last few weeks, an intriguing phenomenon has emerged where influential and highly-placed public officers have begun a methodical and calculated campaign to bring about change in the institutes they run.

Getting out of the cocoon on the part of those who run the institutions and promotion of public debate and participation is healthy and perhaps is an illustration that the country is showing not only signs of tolerance but also of maturity.

The first illustration comes from the judges. Normally judges apply law, and only highlight weaknesses of law in specific cases through the judgements.

Luka Kimaru, during the launch of a report on election management in Kenya titled: “From Pillar to Post: Transforming the Election Agenda in Kenya” said proposals endorsing amendments to the Constitution had been forwarded to the Chief Justice.

The Pillar to Post Report prepared by the International Commission of Jurists and Institute of Education and Democracy also contained recommendations on the extension of the Presidential Election Petitions from 14 days to at least 28 days.

Meanwhile, the Attorney General has asked Parliament to extend the August deadline for the enactment of a law to implement the one-third gender rule. You will recall that on December 11, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled August 27 as the date by which the two-thirds gender rule principles must be put in place under Articles 27 (8) and 81 (b) of the Constitution.

The Constitution (Amendment) (No.3) Bill 2015 seeks to amend Article 81 (b) of the Constitution to effectively set aside the five-year Constitutional deadline and allow for progressive implementation of the two-thirds gender rule.

The second bill, the Two-Thirds Genders Laws (Amendment) Bill, seeks to amend several bills, including the Political Parties Act, 2011, County Government Act, 2012 and the Independent Electoral and Boundaries August 27, 2015.

Jumping on the gender debate bandwagon, AG Githu Muigai vehemently advocates for collective amendments to the Constitution rather than piecemeal or disjointed approach to cater for the perceived political and legal drawbacks of the Constitution.

Director of Public Prosecutions Keriako Tobiko interestingly and publicly decried his inability to successfully prosecute many criminals without a scientific countrywide backup system. According to the DPP, reliance on traditional evidence such as eye witnesses has greatly impeded the successful prosecution of criminal cases.

The DPP told the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee of the National Assembly that in order to effectively prosecute crime in the country, there is need to drastically expand the country’s forensic capacity.

The DPP also wants at least 300 more lawyers employed to replace police prosecutors.

The logistical nightmare of inadequately trained prosecutors is a well-established challenge in the judicial system.

The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission has a mammoth task of registering more than 17 million would-be voters before 2017.

The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission has vowed to address the unceremonious departure of the top management of the Commission and Corruption matters have again caught the imagination of Kenyans after receiving little attention in the post-2010 era.

There is also the matter of the advisory opinion issued by the Commission on the Implementation of the Constitution.

According to the CIC, the EACC is not currently duly constituted and all investigations and recommendations by the Commission should stop until the commissioners are reinstated or new commissioners appointed.

The DPP and AG however, dismissed the contents of CIC’s advisory opinion, stating that the Commission exists as a corporate legal entity and contuse to perform its mandate in accordance to the Constitution.

The matter is likely to be determined in court sooner or later.

The judiciary got a shot in the arm after the belated appointment of 14 judges after over one year delay...

But the judgement of the Court of Appeal rightly classifying what the mainstream High Court can and cannot do in its jurisdiction and distinguishing the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court, the Employment and Labour Relations Court and the High Court poses interesting questions.

There remains another unresolved question of a reverse situation.

Hundreds of land cases have been and are being heard (contrary to law?) by mainstream High Court judges.

The possibility of judgements being overturned is real.