Nairobi, Kenya: Chief Justice Willy Mutunga has told off his critics that there is a difference between him as an individual and the Supreme Court as a judicial institution.
Chief Justice Willy Mutunga
In a brief message on his Twitter handle, Dr Mutunga said there was ‘need for mental shift’, in an apparent reference to some of the stinging criticisms levelled on the Supreme Court ruling regarding the presidential election petition.
“Need for mental shift! The Supreme Court is neither Mutunga’s court nor am I the Supreme Court!” the CJ, who is also the President of the highest court in the land, said.
The six-judge Bench had dismissed the petition by former Prime Minister Raila Odinga, saying that Uhuru Kenyatta and his Deputy William Ruto were validly elected and that the March 4 polls were free and fair.
But it was after the judges released the voluminous ruling last week that criticism began flowing, with some legal experts terming it ‘shallow’ with numerous unanswered questions.
Critical issues
Former Kenya National Commission of Human Rights (KNCHR) chairman Maina Kiai said the bench failed to clarify some of the critical issues raised in the petition and ended up with what he termed as ‘shallow’ judgment.
“There was hope that the Supreme Court would clarify some of the issues raised but, sadly, they have released a shallow judgment, more than half of which simply regurgitates the submissions of the lawyers, breaking ground in terms of jurisprudence and legal thinking,” says the former KHCHR boss.
“Essentially, they have confirmed that it is ‘business as usual’ and I bet that this will have a huge impact on judicial reforms and emerging courage that some High Court judges were cultivating,” he added.
In Wednesday’s copy of The Standard, Elisha Ongoya, a law lecturer and an advocate, faulted the court for what he termed as failure by the judges to observe its own orders.
Ongoya said the court failed to comply with its orders on scrutiny and re-tallying of votes in 22 polling stations.
He termed the Supreme Court ruling a ‘sad commentary’ on a number of aspects.
By Felix Olick, The Standard
