At the beginning of the year, Kenyan President William Ruto accused the country’s judiciary of accepting bribes to obstruct government projects and stated that the government would not comply with court orders. Kenya’s State House backed Ruto’s accusations, defending the president’s commitment to upholding the rule of law while condemning corruption in the judiciary. However, Ruto’s remarks have drawn criticism from individuals, civic organisations and politicians, who are worried about their impact on judicial independence and the rule of law. In this explainer, JURIST explores the criticisms levelled against the statements made by the president and how such statements impact the rule of law and independence of Kenya’s judiciary.
Background: Ruto, the executive and the judiciary
Ruto, Kenya’s fourth President, has been embroiled in controversy, especially due to the high tax rates imposed during his tenure. Before becoming president, Ruto held several notable posts, including member of parliament and deputy president. The president has enjoyed a tumultuous relationship with the court, which despite the ruling announcing him as the president-elect in 2022, has shut down various policies by his government, such as the appointment of the Chief Administrative Secretaries (CAS), the privatisation of parastatals, the sale of Mombasa Port and the deployment of Kenyan police contingent to Haiti. This is in addition to the recent tax policies involving a housing levy and the Social Health Insurance Fund.
Ruto’s statements
In early January, President Ruto accused Kenya’s judiciary of accepting bribes with the intent of hindering government projects. He claimed that those who benefited from corrupt activities formed relationships with unethical judicial personnel, obstructing Kenyan development. The president also cited instances where the judiciary ruled against critical government initiatives, such as Universal Health Coverage and the Housing Levy, and proclaimed that his administration would not follow such court judgements.
The State House backs up Ruto
Following this, the State House expressed its support for the President’s remarks, emphasising his dedication to maintaining the rule of law. The statement reiterated that while the president respected court orders, corruption should not find sanctuary behind the veil of judicial independence. State House Spokesperson, Hussein Mohammed, commented in this regard: “As a believer in the Constitution, President Ruto recognises the imperative to lead by example in defending our constitutional values. This includes shielding innocent citizens from judicial misconduct perpetrated by corrupt officers colluding with vested interests.” These comments have spurred criticism from citizens, civic organisations and politicians alike, all concerned about its impact on judicial independence and the rule of law
Judicial Service Commission response
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) voiced dismay over the president’s words. According to Chief Justice Martha Koome, who is the Chairperson of the JSC, ignoring court decisions seriously weakens the legal system and the rule of law. Furthermore, the chief justice demanded that the executive branch share any proof of the President’s bribery claims. According to Koome:
We are ready to process any complaint against any judge or judicial officer who is implicated in corruption or any other act of misconduct. However, such a complaint must be lodged and processed in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. Days are gone when officers were hounded out of office through name-calling.
Lawyers Society of Kenya, International Commission of Jurists and other NGO join in
The Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ Kenya) also attacked the president’s statements, claiming that they intended to undermine the independence of the judiciary. The ICJ Kenya added that the president’s allusion that certain individuals in the health sector collaborated with judicial officers to block the Social Health Insurance Fund programme damages public trust in the judiciary. The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), Muslims for Human Rights (MUHURI) and the Social Justice Centre Working Group (SJCWG) also jointly condemned the president’s remarks, emphasising the need to respect the rule of law. The organisations asked that Ruto issue an explicit apology and stop attacking the judiciary.
The Law Society of Kenya advised Ruto against making such statements, advising him to seek legal means to fight unpopular rulings rather than weakening the rule of law. The LSK protested the presidents remarks in January, donning purple ribbons as a sign of solidarity.
The rule of law, Kenya’s Constitution and judicial independence
The rule of law is a fundamental concept that emphasises the importance of law above arbitrary power, guaranteeing that all individuals, including government officials, are subject to and accountable to the law. The rule of law is specifically upheld as a basic pillar of Kenya’s 2010 Constitution, which creates a legal framework that encourages the just, equitable and uniform application of laws to all citizens. The Constitution also establishes the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches, prohibiting the consolidation of authority in one organisation and encouraging a system of checks and balances. It guarantees the safeguarding of fundamental rights and freedoms, ensuring that all people are treated equally before the law.
The Constitution of Kenya 2010 scrupulously protects judicial independence as a pillar of the country’s legal system. It establishes an autonomous judiciary that is bound only by the Constitution and the law. The nomination of judges, including the chief justice, is based on a transparent and merit-based process that shields them from outside influences. The Constitution establishes bodies such as the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to ensure the independence of the judiciary. This is enshrined in Article 166. The JSC is in charge of recruiting, disciplining, and removing judges, ensuring their autonomy. Furthermore, the Constitution provides for the judiciary’s financial independence by guaranteeing that budgetary allocations are determined without external influence and protecting it from potential intervention by the executive or legislative bodies.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the recent controversy over President Ruto’s claims against the judiciary in Kenya has sparked a heated debate over the rule of law, judicial independence, and the overall health of the country’s democratic institutions. The president’s critical remarks, combined with his administration’s declaration of noncompliance with court rulings, have generated worries about the potential erosion of the rule of law’s fundamental principles. The judiciary, through the Judicial Service Commission and various civil society organisations—including the Law Society of Kenya, the International Commission of Jurists, and human rights organisations—has strongly condemned the President’s remarks, emphasising the importance of upholding the rule of law, judicial independence and the separation of powers.
