Supreme Court Judge Njoki Ndung’u has filed a case in the High Court seeking to halt the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) from proceeding with petitions calling for her removal from office. The petitions, filed by former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju, lawyer Nelson Havi, and lawyer Christopher Rosan, also target six other Supreme Court judges, including Chief Justice Martha Koome.
In court documents submitted through her lawyer, Andrew Musangi, Justice Njoki argues that the JSC lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the petitions. She maintains that the proceedings violate constitutional safeguards on judicial independence, specifically citing Article 160, which protects judges from external influence.
The petitions, spearheaded by Tuju’s Dari Limited, Havi, and Rosan, accuse the Supreme Court judges of alleged misconduct and incompetence. However, Justice Njoki clarified that she is not challenging Rosan’s petition but remains opposed to the others.
The judge is requesting interim orders to suspend the JSC hearings until the case against the Commission is fully determined. She contends that allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to unconstitutional interference with judicial decision-making and set a dangerous precedent where litigants could use the JSC to intimidate judges.
Musangi, representing Justice Njoki, argues that the JSC lacks the authority to reassess or overturn judicial rulings made within the lawful mandate of a judge. He insists that the Commission’s role is strictly limited to investigating claims of misconduct, incapacity, or incompetence as outlined by law.
“The petitioner, a sitting Supreme Court Judge, has been subjected to unconstitutional disciplinary proceedings before the JSC, based solely on judicial decisions rendered within the scope of her official duties,” Musangi states in the court documents.
Justice Njoki further asserts that some of the matters raised in the petitions are either pending before the courts or have already been resolved, making the proceedings legally and procedurally flawed. She warns that proceeding with the hearings could encourage frivolous petitions aimed at undermining judicial independence.
While acknowledging the JSC’s role in maintaining judicial accountability, she argues that the Commission should not become a tool for litigants unhappy with court rulings. The case now awaits a ruling from the High Court, which will determine whether the JSC hearings will be suspended or allowed to proceed.
This legal battle underscores the growing tensions between judicial accountability and judicial independence, setting the stage for a landmark decision on the powers of the JSC in handling complaints against Supreme Court judges.
