Moral probity, proper staffing key in Judiciary reforms

No doubt, the Judiciary requires urgent salvation from forces of impunity. The acceleration of justice is coming up against serious impediments that need ironing out before elections. This can only happen if and when the Judiciary reforms are devoid of possible witch-hunt and frivolity. Its decisions must of necessity be plausible to inspire confidence in its clientele – justice seekers.

One of the reasons corruption is endemic is because the Judiciary has for a long time been perceived to have surrendered its mandate, and moral authority to perpetrators of heinous crimes. There has been a significant improvement in judicial services, but this arm of Government still has a lot of ground to cover to shed the tag of being a haven of incorrigible professionals.

The apparatus being deployed to improve service delivery in this overly discredited sector should not undermine the discharge of justice. The latent contradictions in the vetting must be addressed, or else the sector plunges into a crisis that will further whatever modicum of confidence the Judiciary still retains.

We applaud the Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board for fast-tracking the process, but in the same vein express reservations that some of its actions will energise the lethargic justice system, whose wheels turn deploringly slowly. It is often joked in Kenyan courts that justice is available only to the highest bidder.

In extreme cases, a judge has been accused of accepting a kilogramme of meat to subvert justice! How absurd! It is against this backdrop that the country is rallying behind the vetting board to inject speed, fair play, and restore confidence in our courts. However, we hasten to add that the process must consider moral probity vis-à-vis speed and staffing of the courts.

The two are not mutually exclusive: The absence of one adversely affects the other. Granted, justice delayed is justice denied. But we cannot run away from the fact that one of the reasons impunity reigns on the Bench is understaffing. The outcome of a similar but less effective exercise carried out by retired Justice Aaron Ringera were the chaos the country went through in 2008 following the contested 2007 presidential.

Had the Judiciary been above reproach, the bloodbath would have been avoided. Unless the vetting board did not want to make public its reasons for purging some of the judges, it is likely that the process will exacerbate an anomaly it has set out to rectify. Where the discharge of justice is sluggish the board should set stringent conditions and determine deadlines the laggards must meet if they are to remain on the Bench. All other considerations must be subservient to moral integrity, but this cannot be possible in situation of work overload.

At the start of the reforms process, case backlog was estimated to be 800,000. An article published last week by the International Commission of Jurists (K) titled Access to Justice expected to be presented during the 2012 Annual Jurists Conference next month, showed Kenya has 332 judges and magistrates serving a population of 38 million people. It points out the maximum number of judges and magistrates prescribed by law have not been attained.

“ICJ-Kenya continually advocates for an increase in the number of judges and magistrates, within the next three years, to bring this at least to the prescribed maximum number by at least to the prescribed maximum number by law,” it says. The board must heed this serious concern.

Until commencement of reforms, the Judiciary oscillated between two extremes – the Spartan and laissez-faire modes. Nothing democratic and any attempts at fair play were adjudged anti-system, hence scorned. A majority of the senior staff in the system had become ‘nativised’ without necessarily being incompetent or devoid of integrity.

Because of the nature and sensitivity of justice-related matters, it behoves the panel to do everything possible to ensure staffing does not further undermine the Judiciary, which naturally breeds other vices.

More so at this critical juncture when the country is preparing for the most highly contested and potentially controversial polls in Africa. The checklist for virtues members of the Bench must espouse should be consistent. Or else, tough and turbulent times lie ahead.