The Katiba Institute has filed a case against the acting Inspector General of Police, Gilbert Masengeli. The Institute is seeking an urgent court order to compel Masengeli to immediately reinstate the security detail of High Court Judge Lawrence Mugambi, whose protection was recently withdrawn under controversial circumstances.
The legal dispute stems from the recent withdrawal of Justice Mugambi’s security detail, a move that Katiba Institute argues threatens the independence of the judiciary. The controversy erupted after Justice Mugambi sentenced IG Gilbert Masengeli to six months in prison for contempt of court. This ruling appears to have prompted the removal of Mugambi’s security, leading to allegations of retaliation.
Joshua Nyawa, representing Katiba Institute, has argued that the withdrawal of the judge’s security detail is not only unjust but also undermines the integrity and independence of the judiciary. According to Nyawa, this action sets a dangerous precedent, suggesting that judges might face intimidation or retribution for making decisions against state organs. The Institute’s case emphasizes that such measures are likely to instill fear among judges, potentially compromising their ability to administer justice impartially.
In response, Acting IG Masengeli has clarified that the security officers assigned to Justice Mugambi were not entirely removed but were instead replaced. He explained that the officers previously assigned to Mugambi have been reassigned to VIP protection training and replaced by two officers from the Judiciary Police Unit. Masengeli argued that police officers seconded to government institutions are still under the National Police Service’s command and that their deployment is within the IG’s purview.
“The two security officers in question were general duty officers recalled to attend VIP security training,” Masengeli stated. “They have been replaced by two VIP protection officers from the Judiciary Police Unit. This reassignment is standard procedure and does not undermine the protection of Justice Mugambi.”
The withdrawal of Justice Mugambi’s security detail has elicited strong reactions from the judiciary. Chief Justice Martha Koome, who is also the Chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), has expressed grave concerns over the incident. She described the withdrawal as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary and warned that such actions could undermine public confidence in the judicial system. Koome has condemned the act, asserting that the judiciary will continue to uphold its principles despite facing attempts at intimidation.
Katiba Institute’s court filing seeks to address these concerns by requesting an immediate reinstatement of Justice Mugambi’s security detail and an injunction against any further interference with his constitutional entitlements. The Institute argues that the police’s actions have unreasonably disrupted the judicial process and created an environment where judges might fear retaliatory actions from the state.
The Institute’s lawsuit highlights the broader issue of judicial independence and the potential consequences of perceived state retaliation against judges. By challenging the actions of the acting IG, Katiba Institute aims to safeguard the principle that judicial decisions must be free from external pressures and threats.
As the court considers the case, the implications of this legal battle extend beyond the immediate concerns of Justice Mugambi’s security. The outcome could set a precedent for how state actions influence judicial independence and the protection afforded to those who serve on the bench.
This legal confrontation underscores the delicate balance between state authority and judicial autonomy, and the resolution of this case will likely have far-reaching consequences for the future of Kenya’s legal and political landscape.
