JIFA Newsflash #21 - Editorial - 31 August 2018

23 February 2019 · Carmel Rickard

THE arrest and intended prosecution of Kenya’s deputy chief justice, Philomena Mwilu, reflects some of the painful and difficult strands in that country’s legal and political story. On the one hand there is the problem of restoring the reputation of the judiciary after a long period in which corruption on the bench was an acknowledged fact. On the other, the government in Kenya is not known for showing respect to the now-reformed judiciary and its decisions. That lack of respect has been increasingly blatant with many contempt of court actions brought in attempts – sometimes ultimately unsuccessful – to ensure government obeyed judicial orders. Add to this the direct threats made against the judiciary after the highest court ruled that the 2017 elections were invalid, and one obvious follow-up to these threats when government made significant cuts to the judicial budget.

The impact of these purges is still being felt: in the same month as the DCJ was arrested, the courts heard at least two cases (see below) dealing with fall-out from that time, with people who feel they were wrongly targeted challenging their dismissal in the courts.

While the judicial purges since 2002 have been welcomed in some quarters, there is also concern that some people, innocent of corruption, were implicated and dismissed in the purge process. Reports by the Open Society Foundation of East Africa outline the positive and the negative results of these purges. (Kenya: Justice Sector and the Rule of Law and Kenya: Justice Sector and the Rule of Law-Discussion Paper ) The mixed results of these purges have even drawn comments from the judiciary in decisions from the bench, with three judges remarking, earlier this year: : “(D)epending on who you ask, (this) was either a noble initiative designed to exorcise the judiciary of the cancer of corruption, or a Machiavellian scheme, deviously contrived to rid the judiciary of unpopular or unwanted judges.”

And that is exactly the problem with the current crisis. Does the arrest of the DCJ indicate that the investigating and prosecuting authorities have indeed detected grounds for trial? Or does it show that the tradition of judicial “purges” is being continued by government as a means of keeping the bench in check?

Whatever lies behind the arrest and charges, this is a dangerous time for the Rule of Law and the independence of the judiciary in Kenya. Chief Justice David Maraga and his colleagues need wise and cool heads.

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.