JOHNSON MUTHAMA: Unfounded accusations hurting Kenya’s Judiciary

Johnson Muthama, commissioner for the Parliamentary Service Commission/FILE

In today’s Kenya, a dangerous narrative is taking root — the belief that corruption pervades our entire Judiciary. Every unfavourable ruling is greeted with cries of bribery and bias.

Judges, magistrates and even the Chief Justice are disparaged without evidence, often viciously, on social media platforms. This trend is alarming.

It undermines not just individual judicial officers but the very foundation of our democracy. Kenya cannot thrive if its courts are delegitimised by anger, misinformation and unfounded accusations.

We must start with a fundamental truth: justice, by its very nature, produces winners and losers. A courtroom is not a place where everyone walks out smiling.

One party wins; the other inevitably loses. That disappointment, however painful, does not mean corruption has occurred. Losing a case does not entitle one to accuse judges of misconduct.

In every litigation, there is always a winner and a loser. This is a reality we must face. If someone loses a case in a lower court, they have the right to appeal to higher courts, starting from the High Court to the Court of Appeal, and even to the Supreme Court.

Is it truly plausible that corruption can infiltrate all these stages, from the lowest to the highest, without being detected? If corruption truly permeated these layers undetected, Kenya’s justice system would have already collapsed.

Yet it stands, delivering rulings every day many of them courageous and fair.

Even outside formal courts, in traditional dispute resolution forums led by chiefs and village elders, the pattern is the same: there are winners and losers.

The tendency to accuse adjudicators of bias when outcomes are unfavourable is not unique to the Judiciary; it is a human instinct to blame others for our losses.

We must resist this instinct. Just as in football, where losing teams often blame referees despite technological innovations like video assistant referee, litigants in court must understand that loss does not automatically imply unfairness.

It is disheartening to see CJ Martha Koome and her predecessors before her subjected to relentless accusations whenever decisions displease certain groups. No CJ in Kenya’s history has retired without facing baseless corruption allegations.

Must we conclude that no Kenyan is capable of serving honourably at the apex of our Judiciary? Such cynicism is toxic to nation building.

Criticism of judges is not in itself wrong. Dissent is actually healthy in any democracy. However, criticism must be based on facts, evidence and due process not frustration or political expediency.

Resorting to attacks on social media platforms like Facebook, TikTok, or X (formerly Twitter) amounts to mob justice, not democratic discourse.

If judicial misconduct occurs, and it does on rare occasions, we have constitutional mechanisms to address it. The Judicial Service Commission exists to investigate and discipline errant officers.

Allegations should be formally presented through legal channels not tried and judged in the court of public opinion.

When we disparage the Judiciary without evidence, we damage Kenya’s reputation internationally. Investors seek environments where the rule of law prevails.

They avoid countries where contracts can be overturned by bribes or where courts can be manipulated by political forces. Every baseless accusation we hurl at our Judiciary sends a red flag to the world: "Kenya’s institutions are weak." We risk economic stagnation, isolation and the erosion of our democratic standing.

Having personally interacted with the justice system winning some cases and losing others, I can attest that outcomes are not determined by bribery. During the infamous ‘Pangani Six’ incident, I was detained for days on hate speech charges.

Wild rumours circulated that the magistrate handling our case was under government pressure. Yet the proceedings disapproved those conspiracy theories. It was a lesson that disappointment often breeds suspicion but suspicion is not proof.

Still, let us not be naïve. The Judiciary is not perfect. Some officials may stray. But the solution lies in strengthening accountability, not in blanket condemnation.

Judges themselves must work continuously to maintain public trust through fairness, transparency and by openly disclosing conflicts of interest when necessary. Only through integrity can the Judiciary retain the respect it needs to operate freely.

Judicial independence is a cornerstone of any democracy. When judges fear public lynching every time they issue an unpopular ruling, mob sentiment rather than the law drives their decisions. That path leads to tyranny and anarchy.

Kenya’s future depends on a Judiciary that is impartial, fearless and trusted. Our judges must be protected from undue political, public or media pressure. Their role is not to please individuals or groups but to uphold the constitution, even when it is unpopular.

If there are rogue elements within the Judiciary, they must be identified and removed through due process not through baseless smear campaigns. We must strengthen, not weaken, the very institutions that guarantee our rights, freedoms and democratic order.

In the end, a functional Judiciary is not a favour to judges it is a safeguard for every Kenyan. Without it, democracy collapses. Without trust in the courts, the rule of law dies.

It is time for us, as a nation, to stop tearing down our Judiciary with reckless accusations and start defending it as the vital pillar of democracy that it is.

Muthama serves as a commissioner for the Parliamentary Service Commission