Judicial Ombudsman’s Return to Haunt Those Who Opposed the BBI’s Proposal

The proposal for a Judicial Ombudsman is a contentious issue, and Kenya’s constitutional talks are once again at the forefront.

The role was initially established as part of the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI), to address problems that the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has encountered.

Advocates considered it as an essential move to increase judicial accountability, while detractors saw it as an unnecessary burden. 

The Judicial Ombudsman was designed to be a progressive instrument, to enhance Kenya’s judicial system oversight.

Supporters argued that the office would ensure that issues related to judicial administration and behavior receive the attention they need and fill in the gaps left by the Judicial Service Commission’s previous challenges.

They saw it as a crucial step toward increasing accountability, and restoring public confidence in the justice system. The concept, however, was viewed by many as an unnecessary addition to the already complex legal system.

It was merely a distraction from the more pressing issues that Kenyans were dealing with, including as economic instability and governmental corruption, they insisted.

Despite these criticisms, it is increasingly evident that the Judicial Ombudsman is necessary, especially in light of contemporary court-related concerns. 

There is a renewed sense of urgency in the Judicial Ombudsman debate because of the controversy surrounding the potential dismissal of Chief Justice Martha Koome and other Supreme Court justices.

Kenyan law allows any judge who is removed from office to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. This complex situation could result in conflicts of interest and harm the judiciary’s credibility since judges may end up rendering decisions in cases involving their peers. 

The only outcome is what is referred to as a “legal quagmire.” The basic principles of impartial oversight may be compromised by this contradiction, which suggests that the judiciary may eventually decide for itself.

This dilemma raises an important question: Can a judge be truly impartial when put in charge of making its own decisions?

The public’s trust in the institution’s moral integrity may be weakened by the very real prospect of judicial bias in the absence of an unbiased oversight system. 

As Kenya nears the 2027 elections, the court’s role in legal and political conflicts will be heavily scrutinized. When asked to decide matters involving its own members, the Supreme Court may adopt a defensive stance in order to maintain its authority.

Because the Kenya Kwanza administration has made it known that it wants judicial reforms, there may be more tensions with the executive branch as a result. 

LINK: https://www.tuko.co.ke/editorial/opinion/579957-bbi-proposal-judicial-ombudsman-haunt-opposed-it/