In a major triumph for suspended High Court Judge Mohammed Noor Kullow, a tribunal tasked with investigating serious allegations of misconduct has found him not guilty of any wrongdoing, clearing him of all 13 charges brought against him.
The tribunal’s ruling, which concluded after months of scrutiny, has recommended his immediate reinstatement to his position as a Judge of the Environment and Land Court.
The tribunal, led by Hon. Justice Patrick Kiage, was formed following a petition from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), which had raised concerns about Kullow’s handling of 116 cases, accusing him of excessive delays in delivering judgments and rulings.
These accusations led to Kullow’s suspension in early 2024, pending the outcome of the inquiry. His suspension saw him placed on half pay as he awaited the tribunal’s verdict.
The tribunal’s final report to President William Ruto, which spans over 200 pages, dismissed all the allegations, stating that the evidence provided by the JSC and other complainants failed to meet the constitutional threshold for removal from office.
According to the findings, none of the claims of incompetence, failure to deliver timely rulings, or other alleged misconduct were substantiated sufficiently to warrant judicial removal.
“This tribunal has found that the evidence tendered did not meet the necessary threshold to justify claims of incompetence or gross misconduct,” said Justice Kiage.
“Therefore, it is our unanimous recommendation that Judge Kullow be reinstated to his position on the Environment and Land Court.”
The case against Kullow had sparked significant debate within legal circles, particularly due to the serious nature of the allegations.
Critics had raised concerns about the perceived inefficiency within the judiciary, while others viewed the investigation as part of ongoing efforts to hold judges accountable for their conduct.
However, despite these challenges, the tribunal found that the accusations, including the failure to rule on cases in a timely manner, were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Kullow had faced multiple allegations of misconduct, most notably in his handling of high-profile land and environmental cases, which were said to be delayed for several years.
Some accused him of being overwhelmed by his caseload and others questioned his decision-making processes.
However, the tribunal noted that while delays in the judicial process are unfortunate, they are not always indicative of misconduct or incompetence.
The report emphasized that without clear evidence of deliberate wrongdoing, the tribunal could not recommend his removal.
The tribunal was initially formed by President William Ruto on March 8, 2024, under the powers granted by Article 168(5)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya.
The investigation aimed to examine four separate petitions submitted by the JSC, which requested the formation of a tribunal to probe the judge’s conduct.
Over the course of the inquiry, the tribunal carefully considered all the evidence, including testimonies, case files, and documents relating to the allegations.
In a noteworthy turn, the tribunal was reconstituted in October 2024 after the election of Justice Anthony Charo Mrima to the JSC and the subsequent appointment of Dorcas Agik Oduor, SC, as Attorney-General.
This change saw new faces join the panel, including Justice Cecilia Wathaiya Githua, who replaced Justice Mrima, and Emmanuel Bitta, who stepped in for Dorcas Agik Oduor.
Despite the reshuffling, the tribunal’s decision remained consistent with its initial findings: the allegations against Kullow were insufficiently substantiated, and the judge’s conduct did not meet the constitutional grounds for dismissal.
This ruling has come as a welcome relief for Kullow, who had been awaiting a resolution to what appeared to be a deeply uncertain future in the judiciary.
The decision is also significant for the judicial process in Kenya, offering an example of how the vetting and investigative mechanisms can sometimes work in favor of judges, even in the face of serious accusations.
It raises important questions about how judicial performance should be evaluated and the challenges in ensuring accountability without undermining judicial independence.
“The tribunal’s ruling marks an important moment for the judiciary, reaffirming the principle that accusations must be substantiated with clear evidence before a judge is removed from office,” said Justice Kiage.
“While the allegations were serious, they did not meet the legal threshold required for a finding of gross misconduct.”
For Judge Kullow, the tribunal’s recommendation paves the way for his return to the Environment and Land Court, a position he has held for several years.
He is now cleared to resume his judicial duties, having weathered a storm of allegations that ultimately failed to stand up to scrutiny.
The decision is seen as a vindication for Kullow, who maintains that his handling of cases was always in good faith and within the bounds of his professional responsibility.
The clearance of Judge Kullow also comes at a time when the JSC continues its efforts to address concerns over the functioning of the judiciary.
With the ruling, the focus now shifts to the ongoing reforms aimed at strengthening Kenya’s judicial processes and ensuring greater efficiency and accountability across the sector.
While the outcome of this case may be seen as a victory for Kullow, it also sets a critical precedent for how similar investigations into judicial conduct will be handled in the future.
The tribunal’s careful examination of the evidence underscores the importance of due process in judicial accountability and reinforces the safeguards designed to protect judicial independence.
Kullow’s reinstatement marks a rare instance of a judge being exonerated and returning to the bench after an extensive inquiry.
His career, once in jeopardy, has been spared, and his return to the court is expected to send a strong message about the importance of fair investigations and the need for clear evidence when it comes to judicial accountability.
As the Kenyan judiciary continues to grapple with the challenges of maintaining public trust and ensuring high standards, the decision in Kullow’s case highlights both the complexities and the safeguards of the system—a reminder that in matters of judicial conduct, the law must always be the ultimate arbiter.
