In a dramatic turn of events, the High Court has suspended the petitions to remove Chief Justice Martha Koome and six other judges from the Supreme Court, sending shockwaves through the judiciary and the nation.
High Court Judge Lawrence Mugambi on Friday issued an order barring the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) from considering any petitions aimed at removing the Chief Justice from office, as well as petitions against Supreme Court Judge Njoki Ndung’u.
This development has taken the ongoing saga of judicial reform and accountability to new heights, adding a complex legal twist to the already contentious issue.
The case, which was filed by a group of prominent lawyers—including former Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Nelson Havi and a coalition of 13 lawyers allied with Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi—accuses the judges of gross misconduct, corruption, and incompetence, sparking public and legal debate.
Koome and Njoki Ndung’u obtained the stay orders after filing separately lawsuits challenging the complaints filed at their Employer(JSC) seeking their ouster.
Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu also weighed in, filing a formal objection before the Judicial Service Commission.
In her response, she argues that the JSC lacks the jurisdiction to entertain petitions based on what she describes as a denial of fundamental rights, further complicating the legal proceedings.
Judge Mugambi’s ruling has temporarily frozen the cases, including the petitions aimed at removing Chief Justice Koome, until a hearing is held on March 5.
The decision halts the JSC’s move to review and potentially dismiss the judges, marking a significant legal setback for those calling for judicial overhaul.
The JSC which first sat on January 24, 2025 to consider the petitions and ordered the seven judges of the Supreme Court to file responces will now have to down it’s tools until the cases filed at the High Court by the top court judges are heard and determined.
The petitions have sparked intense debate across the country, with some calling it a necessary step toward ensuring accountability within the highest echelons of the judiciary, while others view it as an attack on the independence of the judicial system.
