Why JSC is opposed to BBI proposal on Judiciary ombudsman
Chief Justice David Maraga addresses the press on the BBI proposal, flanked by members of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), outside the Supreme Court on December 11, 2020.
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has opposed the appointment of the Judiciary ombudsman by the President and urged the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) Secretariat to instead allow it to select the office holder.
Chief Justice David Maraga noted on Friday that there are alternatives, such as the JSC’s Office of the Ombudsman and the Commission on Administration of Justice, through which the public can voice complaints.
Justice Maraga, who is the JSC chair, further said the BBI proposal presents a conflict as there will be a duplication of roles between the ombudsman and the JSC.
“The risk of parallel complaints being instituted with the JSC as well as the ombudsman and the possibility of different decisions being [reached] is real and may result into a constitutional quagmire,” he told journalists.
He added that for the meaningful independence of the Judiciary, there should also be no uncertainty or confusion about the complaint and resolution mechanism.
Deputy President William Ruto has also opposed the proposed appointment, saying it will interfere with Judiciary’s independence since the appointment will be by the President with the approval of the National Assembly.
Executive appointees
CJ Maraga further noted that the proposal in the BBI seeks to enhance the number of executive appointees in the JSC from four to five.
The four members at the JSC are the Attorney-General, a nominee of the Public Service Commission (PSC) and two appointees of the President.
“The unusually heavy tilt towards Executive representation in the JSC, compared to other commissions, has the potential danger of entrenching Executive authority in the JSC and by extension, in the Judiciary,” he said.
The CJ said having another appointee of the Executive would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
“Moreover, such a move will only serve to erode public confidence in a commission that was termed, before 2010, as no longer regarded as truly independent, so that the Judiciary is seen as vulnerable to government pressures,” he said.
