- As the head of the Judiciary, the CJ possesses the discretion and authority to appoint tribunal members, provided they meet the qualifications and criteria outlined by the law.
On Thursday, February 1, 2024, a petition was filed at the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to remove Chief Justice Martha Koome from office.
The petitioner, Michael Kojo Otieno, a human rights activist, accused the CJ of procedural irregularities in appointing members to the Tax Appeal Tribunal. However, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that the petition lacks merit and is driven by ulterior motives.
The petition's foundation lies in flimsy and frivolous grounds that do not warrant the removal of the CJ from office. The appointment of members to the Tax Appeal Tribunal is an administrative matter that does not impact the core functions and responsibilities of the CJ.
As the head of the Judiciary, the CJ possesses the discretion and authority to appoint tribunal members, provided they meet the qualifications and criteria outlined by the law.
Crucially, the petition is built upon false and unsubstantiated allegations that have not been verified or supported by evidence. The petitioner needs to provide substantial documentation or proof to substantiate the CJ's claims of discrimination or law violations.
Read More
Furthermore, the petitioner does not demonstrate how the appointment of two additional members has resulted in any harm or prejudice to the public interest or the administration of justice.
The petition against CJ Koome is driven by ulterior motives unrelated to her performance or conduct. The petitioner has a history of opposing the CJ and has been openly critical of her appointment and decisions.
Furthermore, the petitioner's association with politicians involved in a pending land dispute suggests a potential conflict of interest. It appears that the petition is being used to intimidate and harass the CJ to influence the case outcome.
The petition against CJ Koome is baseless and a misuse of the constitutional process for removing a judge from office. It fails to meet the threshold or grounds for removal, as stipulated in Article 168 of the Constitution, which includes gross misconduct, incompetence, incapacity, or breach of the code of conduct.
Pursuing such a frivolous and malicious petition wastes valuable time and resources that could instead be directed towards addressing pressing issues affecting the Judiciary and the country.
Chief Justice Koome has demonstrated immense competence, integrity, and professionalism in her role as the head of the Judiciary and the president of the Supreme Court. Her commitment to upholding the rule of law, protecting citizens' rights, and delivering justice to all Kenyans is commendable.
At this crucial time, when the nation faces numerous challenges and prepares for general elections, it is essential to show respect and support for the CJ. Baseless and malicious petitions should not distract or hinder her work nor undermine the Judiciary's crucial role in upholding justice.
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) should swiftly dismiss the petition against CJ Koome, focusing instead on addressing more pertinent and urgent issues affecting the Judiciary and the nation.
Additionally, the JSC should take appropriate action against the petitioner for filing a frivolous and vexatious petition, thereby abusing the constitutional process for removing a judge from office.
Kenyans who value and respect the rule of law and the administration of justice should reject and condemn this unjustified and misguided attack on Chief Justice Koome.
