The Constitution not only contains a more robust chapter on fundamental rights and freedoms, but also creates institutions aimed at operationalizing and or interpreting the inter-relationships protected or created by these rights.
The clamour for the new constitution was therefore informed by complaint by most Kenyans that the state could no longer be trusted to protect and uphold the fundamental rights and freedoms especially where the said executive had acquired illicit ubiquity and omnipresence around fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, trampling upon them like a colossus.Ĭonsisting of 264 articles, the new Constitution attempts to address and or recognize a considerable number of issues and questions that broadly encapsule the spirit and intention of the clamour for it. This near-constitutional renaissance that is being experienced in the country may be attributed to the previous constitutional order that was widely perceived as undemocratic in terms of being limiting in the recognition and exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms as well as perversely open to manipulation and abuse by the executive. A significant number of Kenyans who previously shied away from discussing matters legal, frequently refer to the Constitution to bolster or shield their contestation or contention on any matter whether social, political or domestic/private. In fact since its promulgation in August, 2010 it may be safely said that it remains the most referred document in any discourse concerning politics, governance and rule of law. The Kenya Constitution 2010 has been undoubtedly lauded by constitutional lawyers, judges and scholars as one of the most progressive of our time. This short essay is intended to make a contribution to this debate and make suggestions for possible ways out. This state of affairs has not only raised concern over imminent delay in non-political cases but also whether judges once appointed are restricted to their respective appointment dockets or they can be re-designated by the appointing authority to deal with situations such as is imminent without the JSC having to worry about additional recruitment to make for the apparent shortfall. What this means is that for the next six months cases or matters within the exclusive docket of such judges stand adjourned. The petitions have a time-line of six months. The Election Petition Rules require that once a judge has been designated as an Election Petition judge, he must be released from his daily cause list until such time as he shall conclude the petitions assigned to him.
Is a judge capable of being isolated from the Court he is appointed to serve in? To put it the other way, is there a distinction between a Judge and the Court over which such judge presides? And as a corollary is it the court as an institution or the judge that has jurisdiction?Ī considerable number of judges of the High Court are presently engaged in the hearing of petitions arising from the just concluded general elections. By Jo Abuodha-Judge of the Industrial Court of KenyaĬan a judge of a specialized court preside and substantially hear disputes or questions reserved to the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court.
0 kommentar(er)
