DP impeachment: My two cents on the law, lawyers and economics

After several months of swirling rumours about the impeachment of Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, it came to pass earlier this month.

The fallout from the acrimonious process has gripped the country, even catching the attention of the international media.

But has the drama been dramatic enough, economically? I think not, the Nairobi Stock Index and the value of the shilling seem to have anticipated it.

There were no significant changes in the market.  The market reactions can give us the economic weight of the “impeachee.”  

The impeachment proceedings have made me think of going to law school. My science and economics background should be cross-pollinated with some knowledge of the law.

On second thought, the next generation should study law. I will remain a silent observer of the legal drama.  The law and its intricacies delay decisions in almost every sector. Any economist will argue the law leads to inefficiencies in the economy.

Lawyers will quickly counter-argue, saying it increases efficiency by ensuring contacts are followed to the letter and disputes are sorted without resorting to violence. 

Quality institutions are catalysts of economic growth as noted by the 2024 Economics Nobel laureates. They include judiciary and legal firms.

One measure of their quality is efficiency - how fast cases are dispensed. Our learned friends are right: “justice
delayed is justice denied.” 

The only way to add life to this famous saying is to give timelines to all cases - civil, criminal, corporate and constitutional.

Anyone filing a case should know in advance the cost and time the case is likely to take. Every case should be like the presidential petition—with a clear timeline of two weeks. After all, every case is as important to the parties as the presidency to the country. 

Is that possible? Yes, most cases have precedents, some dating back centuries ago.  The use of precedencies makes law a good candidate for the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), which can seek and analyse precedents more efficiently.

Setting a time limit for each case could encourage the use of AI and cut short all the lengthy exchanges.  

Lawyers will not admit this, but there are good incentives to prolong a case. Every case is a captive market, economically speaking. 

Efficiency can also be increased by reducing information asymmetry, where one party has more information than the other. Lawyers know a lot more about law than most of us. Just like doctors about our bodies. Why is ignorance then no defence in law? 

Who will ever be more knowledgeable about law than lawyers and judges? Would a lawyer be declared ignorant if they did not know how to solve differential equations? 

While Google has reduced the asymmetry in medicine, the same cannot be said about the law. High school-level biology reduces information asymmetry with doctors. Law should be taught in high school too to demystify it and reduce “ignorance.” 

The use of jargon by the legal fraternity increases information asymmetry further. I can follow the proceedings of the US Supreme Court as an amateur.

Why do our “learned friends” use Shakespearean English and Latin? Why not local languages? Why is the
constitution not in Dholuo or Kamba?  

The fact that one can shift from being a lawyer to being a judge and the other way around ensures lots of privileged information remains within the legal fraternity, away from most of us, leading to more information asymmetry. 

What if I can reverse roles with my students or patients with doctors?  The exchange between lawyers and judges bothers me.  In good faith, does it mimic witches and witch doctors? 

Efficiency can be enhanced by increasing competition in the legal fraternity. I have heard bankers say Kenya is overbanked.

Yet a lack of competition is one factor that keeps interest rates high. Kenya is not “over-lawyered.”

Why else do legal fees keep rising and have “floors” (the lowest you can charge)? Why not let the market do its work for as long as quacks are kept off?  

No matter who you are, you can’t escape lawyers, doctors, and teachers. Regulation of these noble professions should ensure their nobility.  There is fear that nobility will be diluted by the market. My thesis is that the market will enhance it. 

Competition spurs innovation and reduces costs. I have noted hospitals now advertise their services. Should we celebrate or mourn over that? Will lawyers be next? 

As things stand, we let lawyers write the 2010 Constitution. They made the Constitution “their home.” How many times does the term lawyer appear in the document? 

The hard truth is that we shall suffer the tyranny of lawyers for many years to come unless we get into their field and learn about their trade or rewrite the Constitution.

I hope the legal fraternity will not sue me for this article. If they do, I am sure there is a lawyer somewhere eager to reduce whatever remains of my savings, if any.