The Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ), commonly known as the Office of the Ombudsman, has suspended summons issued to 10 members of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). The summons, initially issued on February 28, 2025, required the JSC commissioners to appear before CAJ on March 25, 2025, to respond to allegations of failing to publish status reports on unresolved complaints against judicial officers.
In a statement, CAJ Chairperson Charles Dulo explained that the decision to suspend the summons was made to facilitate inter-institutional engagement with JSC through dialogue, mediation, and negotiation. The move follows a request from Chief Justice Martha Koome and aligns with Article 159 (2)(c) of the Constitution, which encourages alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, as well as Regulation 23 of the Commission on Administrative Justice of 2013.
Dulo further noted that the suspension was also influenced by an ongoing matter before the Supreme Court, Advisory No. E001 of 2025, scheduled for hearing on April 3. The advisory seeks to clarify the CAJ’s powers and limitations in handling complaints involving constitutional commissions and devolved governments. Given that the Supreme Court is set to deliberate on this matter, CAJ deemed it necessary to suspend all summons against the JSC commissioners to allow the legal process to proceed without interference.
In the initial summons issued in February, CAJ had requested the JSC to publish all complaints handled by both the Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman and the JSC. This request was based on Article 35(3) of the Constitution and Section 55 of the Access to Information Act, which mandate public institutions to disclose information of public interest. CAJ had initially made the request on December 23, 2024, and February 4, 2025, giving JSC 21 days to comply. However, JSC had not fulfilled this obligation within the stipulated period, prompting the summons.
With the suspension in place, CAJ hopes to resolve the matter amicably while upholding transparency and accountability in the judiciary. The outcome of the Supreme Court advisory will likely shape how CAJ handles future complaints involving constitutional commissions.
