The Judiciary in Kenya has responded to criticism over its handling of cases involving abductions and enforced disappearances. In a statement, Judiciary Spokesperson Paul Ndemo said the institution's constitutional role is to protect fundamental rights through judicial interventions. He emphasised that the responsibility for implementing court orders rests with relevant State agencies, not the Judiciary. This response comes after a local newspaper raised concerns about the Judiciary's response to incidents of abductions and alleged impunity by law enforcement agencies.
The Judiciary acknowledged the media's role in promoting accountability and transparency but cautioned against reporting that misrepresents the roles of different State institutions. Ndemo stated that the Judiciary is an independent and impartial institution mandated to resolve disputes and determine the rights of parties based on the Constitution, the law, and evidence presented before courts. The Judiciary's role is to adjudicate disputes, determine rights, and hold persons and institutions accountable in accordance with the Constitution, the law, and the evidence presented.
The Judiciary condemned abductions and enforced disappearances, stating that courts have consistently exercised their constitutional powers to protect fundamental rights through various judicial remedies, including habeas corpus proceedings. Court orders issued in such proceedings are legally binding and must be respected by all individuals and institutions, including security agencies. The Judiciary emphasised that it is not an investigative, prosecutorial, or law enforcement agency, and its role is limited to adjudicating disputes and determining rights.
The Judiciary urged media organisations to exercise caution when reporting on cases involving abductions and alleged human rights violations. They should distinguish between the responsibilities of courts and those of investigative, prosecutorial, and enforcement agencies. Attributing failures of other institutions to the Judiciary misrepresents the constitutional architecture and risks misleading the public about where accountability properly lies. The Judiciary welcomes constructive scrutiny but emphasises the need for accurate and fair reporting.
This response from the Judiciary comes weeks after a technical disruption affected its Cause List Portal, prompting alternative arrangements to help advocates and other court users access court sessions. The Judiciary announced that a technical team was working to resolve the issue and had put in place measures to ensure court users could access information about their scheduled matters and participate in virtual court sessions. Court users were advised to use their E-Filing accounts to access virtual court links and check the matters listed before various courts for the day.
The Judiciary also assured that judges and judicial officers would display the cause lists during virtual court sessions to help advocates and other court users follow the proceedings. The institution appreciated the patience and cooperation of court users as the technical team worked to resolve the issue. The Judiciary's response to criticism over abductions and enforced disappearances highlights the need for clarity on the roles of different State institutions in protecting fundamental rights.
The issue of abductions and enforced disappearances remains a concern in Kenya, with the Judiciary emphasising its commitment to protecting fundamental rights through judicial interventions. The institution's response aims to promote transparency and accountability while ensuring that the roles of different State institutions are understood and respected. Key to this is the accurate reporting of cases and the distinction between the responsibilities of courts and those of other State agencies.
Key points
- The Judiciary in Kenya has defended its role in protecting fundamental rights amid criticism over handling of abduction cases.
- The institution emphasised that its constitutional role is to protect fundamental rights through judicial interventions, not to implement court orders.
- The Judiciary urged media organisations to exercise caution when reporting on cases involving abductions and alleged human rights violations.
