Kenyans now have a clearer and more accessible path to initiate the removal of judges accused of misconduct, incompetence or ethical violations under newly unveiled regulations.
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has published the final draft of the Judicial Service (Petition for Removal of a Judge) (Procedure) Regulations, 2026, establishing a structured process that enhances public oversight of the judiciary. It has also issued a public notice inviting citizens to validate the regulations before gazettement.
The regulations, which operationalise Article 168 of the Constitution, allow any citizen to file a petition—anonymously if necessary—without incurring fees, ensuring whistleblowers and ordinary Kenyans can seek accountability from judges without fear of retaliation or financial barriers.
However, petitions must be submitted in writing, supported by evidence, witness statements and relevant documents.
While the regulations introduce strict timelines to speed up the process, a full removal case is expected to take four to six months from filing to determination. If the JSC finds sufficient grounds for removal, it forwards the petition to the President for further constitutional action.
If not, the case is dismissed with both parties informed of the decision.
The regulations allow anonymous petitions, widening access for whistleblowers who may fear retaliation.
Chief Justice Martha Koome.
Photo credit: Bonface Bogita|Nation Media Group
The draft regulations released by Chief Justice Martha Koome come at a time of heightened litigation over the removal of judges, with courts grappling with whether the JSC can process complaints without formal procedural rules.
When the seven Supreme Court judges faced ouster petitions last year and were asked to respond to the complaints, they also moved to the High Court arguing that the JSC lacked regulations to guide the processing of petitions and complaints.
The draft regulations give ordinary Kenyans a direct channel to challenge judges accused of misconduct, incompetence, or violations of the judicial code of conduct. Grounds for removal include “inability to perform the functions of office,” breach of conduct, bankruptcy, incompetence, or “gross misconduct or misbehaviour.”
Process of filing complaints
The Judicial Service Commission has published the final draft of Judicial Service (Petition for Removal of a Judge) (Procedure) Regulations, 2026.
Photo credit: Shutterstock
Once filed, the JSC must acknowledge receipt within seven days and conduct a preliminary review within 30 days to assess merit. If the complaint meets the threshold, the judge in question is formally notified and given 21 days to respond.
The Commission can summon witnesses, demand documents, and conduct investigations, with proceedings structured to mirror court hearings—complete with witness testimony, cross-examination, and evidence presentation. It may “summon any person to produce any document, evidence or information,” strengthening its fact-finding powers.
Where a judge fails to respond or the explanation is unsatisfactory, the matter proceeds to a full hearing.
“The Commission must hold a pre-hearing conference within 14 days to confirm compliance, fix hearing dates, and issue directions, with judges allowed to attend in person or through counsel.”
“It must also ensure protective measures during hearings, including closed sessions for vulnerable witnesses and secure handling of sensitive information.”
The Commission is mandated to within seven days of making the decision inform the judge of the date for the delivery of the Commission’s decision, then the ruling and submit a report of its findings to the judge.
The process is structured to mirror court proceedings. Petitioners and judges can present evidence, call witnesses, and cross-examine each other. At the hearing stage, the regulations provide that a petitioner “shall take an oath or solemn affirmation before giving evidence” and may produce supporting exhibits.
Judges are equally entitled to defend themselves, including presenting witnesses and documents, ensuring procedural fairness.
“The decision of the Commission shall be unanimous or shall be determined by a majority of the members,” the document reads.
A key innovation is the establishment of a specialized panel within the JSC to handle petitions, evaluate evidence, and make recommendations. The panel wields quasi-judicial powers, including the authority to compel testimony and document production. It has powers to “receive evidence, summon and examine witnesses, and require production of documents,” giving it quasi-judicial authority.
At the conclusion of proceedings, the Commission determines whether the petition meets the constitutional threshold for removal.
