A three-judge bench has been appointed to preside over petitions challenging the potential removal of Chief Justice Martha Koome and several Supreme Court judges from office. The bench, comprising Justices Charles Kariuki, Lawrence Mugambi, and Bahati Mwamuye, was constituted following a High Court directive that found the matter raised significant constitutional and legal questions warranting deliberation by more than one judge.
The controversy stems from petitions filed against Chief Justice Koome and her Supreme Court colleagues Justices Njoki Ndung’u, Isaac Lenaola, William Ouko, and Smokin Wanjala questioning their continued stay in office. In response, the judges moved to the High Court to challenge how the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) was handling the removal proceedings. They claimed procedural irregularities and a violation of their rights to fair administrative action.
The High Court subsequently issued temporary orders suspending the JSC’s ongoing proceedings against the judges until the matter is heard and determined. This intervention aimed to preserve judicial independence and prevent potential miscarriage of justice during the litigation process.
However, legal questions arose over who should have the authority to constitute the bench to hear the sensitive matter. Prominent lawyer Nelson Havi argued that it would be a conflict of interest for Chief Justice Koome a petitioner in the case to have any role in appointing judges to hear a case in which she has a direct personal interest. Havi contended that such action would undermine public confidence in the judiciary and compromise the integrity of the judicial process.
The formation of the bench was thus made independently to address concerns over fairness and impartiality. As the country watches closely, the case presents a critical test of judicial accountability, constitutional safeguards, and the delicate balance of power within Kenya’s legal system.
The hearing date for the matter is expected to be set soon, and the outcome could have far-reaching implications for the composition and credibility of the Supreme Court and the broader judiciary.
