Human rights activist Kipkorir Ngetich has called on the Judiciary to give greater consideration to the wider public interest when making decisions that have far-reaching implications on government policies, public finances and service delivery.

Speaking to the press in Eldoret, Ngetich, who represented the Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, said the organisation respects the independence and constitutional authority of the Judiciary but maintained that court decisions should be guided by the Constitution and the interests of the Kenyan people.

Ngetich was reacting to the recent court decision concerning the disposal of the government’s shares in Safaricom, arguing that the matter should not be viewed purely from a legal perspective without considering the potential economic and social consequences of the ruling.

He said courts have an important constitutional responsibility to ensure that judicial authority is exercised in a manner that protects the public good, particularly when decisions involve national resources and government programmes affecting millions of citizens.

“The Centre for Human Rights and Democracy wishes to caution the Judiciary that court decisions must respect the wishes of the people and must not become a weapon against progressive government policies,” Ngetich said.

He argued that although the Judiciary must remain independent from the Executive and other arms of government, judicial decisions should take into account the broader consequences of orders that stop or delay the implementation of government policies.

Ngetich said courts should carefully assess national and public interest when considering applications for conservatory orders, permanent injunctions or other orders that could restrain the implementation of government decisions.

He referred to Article 159 of the Constitution, which provides that judicial authority is derived from the people of Kenya and is exercised in accordance with the Constitution. He argued that the provision should remind all institutions exercising public authority that their actions ultimately have an impact on the citizens from whom that authority is derived.

According to Ngetich, the government depends on resource mobilisation to finance its activities, including the provision of essential services and implementation of development programmes. He warned that court orders restricting government access to resources could have consequences beyond the parties involved in a particular case.

He said the implications could be felt in government projects, public services and programmes that depend on the availability of funds.

Ngetich further argued that resource mobilisation through the disposal of government assets or investments is a practice used by governments around the world to raise funds for public expenditure.

He maintained that the decision involving the government’s Safaricom shares was based on economic and technical considerations, saying those involved in challenging the transaction should also consider the potential impact on the wider population.

The activist questioned what would happen to projects and financial commitments that may have already been undertaken after the government received funds associated with the transaction.

He argued that if a court ruling subsequently reverses or disrupts a transaction that has already been implemented, there could be significant financial consequences, including the question of who would ultimately bear any resulting losses.

Ngetich also pointed out that Safaricom shares are held by millions of Kenyans, some of whom acquired the shares through personal savings, while others may have relied on loans or disposed of other assets to invest in the company.

He said decisions concerning the company therefore have implications beyond the government and should be considered in the context of the wider economy and the interests of ordinary citizens.

He also expressed concern over what he described as the possibility of the Judiciary being used to settle political differences, urging the Chief Justice to ensure that courts remain focused on their constitutional mandate when handling politically sensitive matters.

Ngetich alleged that the petition challenging the government’s transaction was politically motivated, but stressed that such matters should ultimately be determined through the established legal process rather than political considerations.

He appealed to the Judiciary to avoid what he termed the “instrumentalisation” of court decisions in matters of public policy, saying courts should not be used as platforms for punishing political opponents or settling political scores.

He said judges are sworn to serve the public and should therefore remain conscious of the broader consequences of their rulings, particularly where decisions touch on national finances and government programmes.

Ngetich further argued that technical or procedural considerations should not result in decisions that cause long-term harm to the general public.

He said while courts must uphold the law and protect constitutional rights, they should also remain alive to the practical consequences of their decisions and the effect such decisions could have on public institutions and citizens.

“Countries have managed to grow and advance through availability of funds to finance their activities, and one arm of government should not be seen as sabotaging such important undertakings,” Ngetich said.

He urged the Attorney General, Parliament and the National Treasury to pursue the available legal avenues to challenge the ruling, arguing that the matter carries significant implications for public finance and ongoing government programmes.

Ngetich maintained that the Centre for Human Rights and Democracy does not oppose judicial independence, but wants all arms of government to operate within their constitutional mandates while protecting the broader interests of Kenyans.

He said the debate surrounding the Safaricom shares should therefore extend beyond the immediate legal dispute to include questions about public resources, government financing, service delivery and the potential economic consequences of reversing decisions that have already been implemented.

The activist called for a balance between judicial oversight and the need for government to implement policies and mobilise resources for national development, saying the ultimate responsibility of all public institutions should be to safeguard the interests of the Kenyan people.