OPINION: A Mongrel Judgment That Raises Questions of Judicial Competence

Dr. Luchetu Likaka

The High Court ruling will likely be remembered not for its legal brilliance but for the confusion, contradictions, and uncertainty it has generated. A judgment of such national significance ought to clarify the law, strengthen constitutional order, and enhance public confidence in the Judiciary. Instead, it appears to have achieved the opposite.

The central concern is not whether one agrees or disagrees with the outcome. Courts are entitled to reach unpopular conclusions. The concern is whether the reasoning employed was coherent, consistent, and capable of withstanding rigorous constitutional scrutiny.

A judgment that appears to affirm certain constitutional principles while simultaneously undermining them creates uncertainty in the law.

A ruling that leaves lawyers, scholars, politicians, and ordinary citizens debating what exactly was decided is not a mark of judicial excellence. It raises legitimate questions about the quality of legal analysis that informed the decision.

Judicial Accountability vs Judicial Independence

The Judiciary enjoys independence because society expects competence, consistency, and intellectual rigor from those entrusted with interpreting the Constitution. When a bench issues a ruling that appears internally inconsistent or difficult to reconcile with established constitutional principles, criticism becomes not only legitimate but necessary.

Judicial accountability is not an attack on judicial independence. Indeed, accountability is what protects the credibility of independent institutions. Article 168 of the Constitution exists precisely because judges, like all holders of public office, are expected to meet high standards of competence and professional conduct.

Also Read: Lawyers Explain Why Gachagua Can Win at the Court of Appeal

If there is a genuine belief that the ruling demonstrates gross incompetence, serious misapplication of constitutional principles, or conduct that has diminished public confidence in the administration of justice, then concerned citizens and institutions should consider invoking the constitutional mechanisms available under Article 168. Such a process would allow an independent assessment of whether the judges met the standards required of their office.

Public Confidence vs Legitimate Concerns

The Judiciary cannot demand public confidence while dismissing legitimate concerns about the quality of its decisions.

Respect for courts is earned through sound reasoning, consistency, and fidelity to the Constitution. Where those qualities appear absent, accountability becomes a constitutional necessity rather than a political choice.

Also Read: OPINION: Removing Prof. Julius Bitok Will Not Fix Kenya’s Education Crisis

The greatest threat to judicial independence is not criticism from citizens. It is the perception that judges can produce confusing and contradictory rulings without scrutiny.

If confidence in the Judiciary is to be preserved, questions arising from yesterday’s judgment must not be ignored. They must be confronted through the constitutional processes provided by law.

Follow our WhatsApp channel for instant news updates