The Judicial Service Commission has declined to recommend the removal of three Supreme Court judges accused of staging a go-slow.
The JSC held that there was a go-slow at the Supreme Court, but it did not meet the threshold for removal of justices Mohammed Ibrahim, Jacktone Boma Ojwang and Njoki Ndung’u.
Sources told the Star that though the JSC did not recommend their removal, it admonished the judges over what it called misconduct.
Earlier, the three in their response to JSC denied withdrawing their services as judges contrary to allegations levelled against them by former Law Society of Kenya CEO Apollo Mboya.
The move by the JSC to probe the three arose from a letter written by the Supreme Court to the commission on two controversial matters — the retirement age for judges and an election petition.
The court’s letter to the JSC was prompted by a directive by the commission that justices Philip Tunoi and Kalpana Rawal cease hearing cases because they had reached retirement age. Yet, from the court’s point of view, the suspension of the two rendered the Bench incomplete because the constitution requires that there be seven judges.
The court was also unable to hear the two cases because two of its members – Chief Justice Willy Mutunga and judge Smokin Wanjala – were members of the JSC, to which the complaint had been addressed.
Mboya filed a petition accusing the three judges of going on strike and commenting on the age limit issue while making a ruling on the politician Nick Salat election petition with regard to the Bomet senator post.
Mboya sought their removal from office over alleged gross misconduct.
The judges said the claims of misconduct and alleged abdication of duty are baseless. They challenged Mboya to state the exact services they withdrew, from whom they withdrew their services and particular judicial operation on which they imposed a moratorium.
The judges said the intention of their letter to the JSC was to implore the commission to consider its decision on the issue of judges’ retirement age to avoid paralysing the operations of the highest court in the land.
Justice Ibrahim said: “The letter was a cordial communication to the JSC inviting it to rethink the eminent repercussions of its directive to the court. It was a mere expression of an opinion as between judges in their personal capacities to the JSC. It has no judicial standing.”