In the chambers of justice, a Judicial officer is many things. At one point, an administrator ensures the courtroom is well managed and the business of dispensing justice continues unhindered. Other times, a compassionate face who not only concerns herself with the content of the law but also with the texture of its delivery. The indignant when in a courtroom should feel part and parcel of the justice project.
And I could go on and on. So what makes a judicial officer go beyond the learning of the law and the mastery of its rigours? Due to that multilayered face of a judicial officer, in this piece, I contend that most judicial officers in Kenya do not take their role seriously as authors to both the parties and the public, in most of their decisions. This malady has mostly plagued the magistracy, with some worrying decisions also from the High Court. The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have so far done relatively well.
I have recently come across two decisions from the magistracy, one on a civil matter on lifting of the veil and another on a no case to answer ruling. Both the decisions are a one-liner, ‘I have considered the parties and I hereby find…”, this casualness and near-careless handling of decision writing have deep repercussions on the delivery of justice and do violence to our constitutional architecture itself. So, we must ask, how should a judicial officer write? Should they be prose storytellers or pen mechanics with templates to always reproduce? What is the basic art of writing that is required at the sacrosanct seat of justice?
The answer to this question lies in what can be properly called a ruling or a judgment. For starters, the foremost duty of a judicial officer is to give reasons. In plain terms, this means that if a court of law is to issue a ruling or a judgment, it must be able to explain the rationale for reaching the conclusions it has made. Many decisions from the magistracy and the small claims court are problematic in this aspect.
They demonstrate a deliberate pattern of hollow writing where conclusions are made without a basis. Even more perturbing is that some judges will spend 90 per cent of the pages of their decisions regurgitating what parties said and the evidence presented and 10 per cent in making conclusions. No analysis, no rationale.
The problem that such writing by judicial officers poses goes into the very heart of justice. First, how does a litigant who wishes to appeal proceed? One wonders if they are judicial decisions in the first place, if the essence of intellectual engagement of the law and the facts is missing. It becomes almost impossible to draft an appeal to a decision which, on the face of it, is so mechanical that it defies the basic known tenets of a judgment or a ruling. A decision silent on the law or facts, but loud on conclusions. Secondly, this casualness of decision writing should be considered by the Judicial Service Commission as incompetence of a judicial officer, a solid ground for removal from office.
Incompetence as a termination ground often emanates from the duties apportioned to an employer, an action or inaction that emanates from what they should be competent to do. The post-2010 Judicial officer should be aware that they do not write only for the legal audience but also for the general public itself. The Constitution overwhelmingly centred the citizenry at every public mandate.
There is an argument that the judiciary is overwhelmed with case backlog and as such, many judicial officers are under pressure to deliver within the judiciary performance appraisal system. While this may be true, the quality of judicial decisions cannot be compromised at the expense of meeting the threshold of performance appraisal. The Kenyan Judiciary must hold its officers to account on the details of the basics of judging.
While judicial officers should not overly burden a decision with legalese or the obvious, a court cannot possibly, for instance, decide on a matter with no reference to any law or past precedents, as we have recently seen. How can a court of law in a 23-page decision fail to cite any law or past precedents? As a legal system, we are losing the rigour of decision writing and denying both the public and litigants an opportunity to engage with the law.
At the same time, a judicial officer should not unnecessarily write in outbursts to counsel dealing with a matter. In the recent past, there was a ‘sensational writing’ where judges without cause made comments that were clearly injudicious and went beyond the modesty of legal writing in an honourable profession.
Judicial officers have a duty to be temperate in their decision writing; they must know they write on behalf of the public, not for settling personal scores with parties. This similarly applies to Appellate courts that deploy military language to the trial courts below them.
It is observable how, in reversing certain decisions, appellate courts have become ballistic either in analysis or in reference to the judicial officer who handled the matter. Courts have the discretion to err, hence the appellate channels. An exercise of judicial function can be misguided and that is extremely acceptable in law. Texture and tenure of language matter in law.
