Homa Bay Town MP Peter Kaluma has publicly criticised former Chief Justice David Maraga’s recent court appearance in support of civic activist Rose Njeri, raising concerns about its implications on the former CJ’s legacy.
Maraga appeared before Milimani Magistrate Geoffrey Onsarigo on May 3, 2025, alongside other high-profile figures including former Vice President and Senior Counsel Kalonzo Musyoka and Senior Counsel John Khaminwa. The trio offered legal and moral support to Njeri, who was released on a Sh100,000 personal bond as the court deferred a plea decision to June 20, 2025.
Njeri faces charges of unauthorised interference with computer systems, in violation of Section 16 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act. Maraga strongly criticised the manner of her arrest, arguing that detaining her on a Friday ahead of a long weekend was intended to inflict psychological distress. “The police didn’t need to arrest her; they just needed to call and inform her they intended to prefer charges,” he told the court.
In a statement on June 4, MP Kaluma expressed disapproval over Maraga’s courtroom involvement, stating that such actions might cloud public perception of his impartiality and legacy as the country’s former top judge. Kaluma, a lawyer by profession, noted that while civic engagement is encouraged, Maraga’s support for a person facing criminal charges may raise questions, especially given his declared interest in the 2027 presidential race.
Kaluma also reiterated the need for structured roles for retired state officers, noting that many have valuable experience that should not go to waste. “As I’ve said before, we must find a way to ensure retired heads of government arms remain meaningfully engaged,” he said.
Maraga, who has been on a nationwide tour to drum up support for his 2027 presidential bid, is expected to unveil the political party under which he will seek to challenge President William Ruto in the coming months.
The incident has sparked a wider debate on the roles of retired public servants and the fine line between legal advocacy and political ambition.
