Court stalls moves by Kenya's President putting judiciary under executive control

14 August 2020 · Carmel Rickard

The Law Society of Kenya has succeeded in putting at least a temporary brake on the government’s plan to transfer the judiciary and a number of independent bodies to the direct control of the executive. In May President Uhuru Kenyatta signed Executive Order No 1/2020, making these changes, and the law society responded by filing a petition shortly afterwards. Last week the high court’s constitutional and human rights division considered that petition and granted an interim order in terms of which the executive order is put on hold, pending full argument of the case. Judge James Makau said this was a suitable case for the court to intervene against ‘the excesses of the Executive’ which was using administrative processes to extend its powers.

Read judgment

Read Executive Order No 1/2020

Read Kenya Human Rights Commission press statement

When Kenya’s supreme court declared the August 2017 elections invalid, the decision enraged President Uhuru Kenyatta who said that he would ‘deal with’ the judiciary. He has attempted to make good that threat in a number of ways, one of them being Executive Order No 1/2020, issued by him in May this year.

That decree re-structures government and includes the judiciary in a way that the Kenya Human Rights Commission says allocates the judges to a position of subservience in relation to the office of the president.

The Law Society of Kenya reacted to the executive order by lodging a petition against the Attorney General and the head of public service, asking to have that order declared unconstitutional. Pending full argument of the matter, the law society asked the court for a temporary interdict on implementation of the order.

When the matter was called last week, the law society said that the executive order proposes changes to the structure of the executive, and introduces changes to the structure of the judiciary.

Compromised

Among these changes the president has placed various tribunals, constitutional commissions and other independent bodies ‘under various government departments’ so that they will be under the control and direction of these departments. Concerned that these tribunals, commissions and independent offices would lose their independence, and that their budgets and finances would be compromised, the law society urged the court to grant an order putting on hold the President’s plan in relation to the judiciary and the independent bodies that he had re-assigned.

The AG contested the interim order, saying the disputed executive order ‘enjoys the presumption of legality and constitutionality’. Moreover, the AG argued, there was no evidence that the interim order, if granted, ‘would enhance constitutional values … in the Bill of Rights’.

Judge James Makau said before he could grant the interim order, he needed to establish, among others, that the law society’s case had, at least on the face of it, a likelihood of success, and that it (the society) was likely to suffer prejudice if it were not granted.

Wrongfully invoked

Considering the facts of the matter, ‘it is apparent that it is possible that the President has invoked his powers wrongfully and used administrative process to purport to restructure and re-organise independent constitutional offices.’

‘It has been shown that various independent offices including the judiciary and some of its tribunals have now been placed under various state departments and ministries, which amounts to direct contravention of the constitutional principles and values on judicial independence, the rule of law, transparency and accountability amongst others.’

The judge said he was aware that, at this stage, he was not to examine the merits of the matter but, rather, had to consider whether a case had been made out on the face of it to warrant an interim order. He noted that the executive order was already in force and that the law society had come to court to ‘prevent any further implementations’. If he did not grant an interim order, budgetary allocations could be made that the court would later not be able to reverse. Various appointments and new policies were also likely to be made that would be difficult to reverse at a later stage.

Unknown

The law society had argued that the executive arm of government had given itself ‘powers and a mandate unknown in law’, by purporting to restructure institutions that were outside its control. It had also argued that the judiciary, commissions and other constitutionally independent bodies had to be seen to be carrying out their functions ‘free of orders, instructions or any other intrusions’.

Given this background, if he did not grant the interim order it would ‘cause irreparable harm to the public’. Any alleged violation of the constitution was a very serious matter and an affront to constitutionalism. It set a dangerous precedent and could lead to serious harm to the country and every citizen. The law society had shown a likelihood of success and that public interest would be prejudiced if he were not to grant the order.

Apart from the judiciary, the constitutionally independent bodies which may now not be transferred to executive control, pending full argument of the matter, include the Judicial Service Commission, the Public Service Commission, the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights and the Independent Boundaries and Electoral Commission.

No date has been announced for the full hearing of the dispute.

Unconstitutional

Commenting on the May executive order, the Kenya Human Rights Commission said that in 2016, Kenyatta had issued an earlier executive order, dealing with the judiciary and the Judicial Service Commission among others. Two years later the law society won a court order declaring that the attempt to include these independent offices in the presidential executive orders was unconstitutional.

The May 2020 executive order was thus issued despite an existing court bar on such action by the president. The commission said that the rule of law required obedience to court orders, and that the president should withdraw the executive orders. Further, the commission was concerned because rather than encouraging and advising the president to comply, ‘the AG is encouraging disobedience of the orders of the high court.’

* 'A Matter of Justice', Legalbrief, 10 August 2020

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.