In the wake of a controversial court ruling that questioned the appointment of Deputy President Professor Kithure Kindiki, Eldoret-based human rights activist Kipkorir Ngetich has issued a strongly worded statement calling on the Judiciary to exercise restraint, uphold institutional respect, and act with sensitivity when making decisions with significant political and constitutional implications.
Speaking to the press on Monday morning, Ngetich emphasized that while the Judiciary is a vital and independent arm of government, its recent rulings have begun to raise public concern about the possible politicization of judicial authority and the erosion of constitutional balance.
“As a human rights advocate and a concerned citizen, I want to make it clear that we deeply respect the authority, independence, and jurisdiction of the Judiciary,” Ngetich stated. “However, we cannot ignore the fact that this particular ruling is both suspicious and questionable. It raises fundamental issues regarding the separation of powers and the independence of government institutions.”
Ngetich pointed out that Kenya's democratic governance structure is built on three co-equal arms of government—the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary—each with clearly defined roles and limitations. He asserted that the National Assembly, acting on its constitutional mandate as the voice of the people, followed due process in impeaching the former Deputy President and approving the nomination of Professor Kindiki by the Head of State.
“Following the lawful impeachment of the former Deputy President, the President had the full constitutional mandate to appoint a successor,” he explained. “The National Assembly, the only body legally mandated to vet and approve such a nomination, did so in accordance with the law. There is no constitutional requirement for the Judiciary to interfere in that process.”
Ngetich expressed fears that the ruling may set a dangerous precedent that undermines both the Executive and the Legislature. He questioned the motive behind the court's timing and tone, noting that it seemed to be part of an ongoing campaign to discredit the presidency and, by extension, the government.
“This ruling has come at a time when the Office of the President has been consistently targeted by a segment of the Judiciary, sections of the media, and opposition-aligned activists,” he said. “This is not only destabilizing but also deeply troubling for a democracy that prides itself on institutional checks and balances.”
The activist warned that if not checked, such rulings could create constitutional confusion and weaken public trust in the Judiciary. He noted that judicial independence does not mean unchecked power or disregard for the roles and decisions made by other constitutional organs.
“Let us not forget, the Judiciary operates under delegated authority from the people of Kenya, just like all other arms of government. It should not become a tool for political agendas, nor should it engage in rulings that bring confusion, especially where the law has been clearly followed.”
Ngetich further observed that it is ironic and contradictory for the courts to cast doubt on the appointment of the Deputy President, while failing to consider the national urgency of filling a critical constitutional position.
“Had the President failed to appoint a new Deputy President, the same Judiciary or certain actors would have likely gone to court to claim that the government was unlawfully constituted,” he argued. “So what exactly is the expectation here? That the Executive halts its duties until political battles are fought in the courts?”
He added that Kenya’s Constitution is not a rigid document but a progressive charter that recognizes the need for flexibility in the face of evolving challenges. However, this flexibility must not be abused by any one arm of government at the expense of national harmony.
“If the Judiciary continues to overstep and challenge every decision by the Executive or Parliament, how do we expect to move forward as a country? Where do we draw the line between checks and sabotage?”
The activist urged Kenyans to uphold the rule of law but also to actively question and engage with court decisions that appear to be politically charged or lacking in objectivity.
“Obedience to the rule of law does not mean silence in the face of questionable decisions,” he insisted. “Kenyans have the constitutional right to interrogate the Judiciary and to hold it accountable when its actions threaten peace, stability, and national unity.”
Ngetich concluded by calling on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to investigate the broader implications of the ruling and to ensure that the Judiciary remains neutral, credible, and sensitive to the political and constitutional health of the country. He also urged the Attorney General to immediately file an appeal and involve constitutional scholars in challenging the decision.
“Professor Kindiki is not just any nominee—he is a renowned legal scholar and a disciplined public servant. Discrediting his appointment on weak grounds is a disservice to the rule of law and to national cohesion.”
As the country moves closer to the 2027 general elections, Ngetich warned that Kenyans should brace for more politically charged court decisions, and called for vigilance to ensure that the Judiciary remains a bastion of justice, not a political weapon.
“We must not allow judicial activism to destabilize the state. Parliament, the Executive, and the Judiciary must work in harmony—not in rivalry. This ruling must be appealed, interrogated, and reversed for the good of the country.”
0 $type={facebook}:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.