An advocate from the High Court of Kenya has filed a fresh petition seeking the removal of Chief Justice Martha Koome from her position.
Petitioner Christopher Rosana claims that Chief Justice Koome is incompetent and unfit to serve in her role. He argues that her actions have undermined the integrity of the Judiciary.
The petition relies on Article 168 of the Constitution, which outlines the procedures and grounds for removing a judge, including the Chief Justice, due to alleged incompetence.
Also Check Out – Kenyan Pursues Ouster of Chief Justice Martha Koome from Office
Rosana emphasizes that a judge may be declared incompetent based on the potential consequences of a misstep rather than a consistent pattern of inappropriate conduct. He states, “The gravity of potential consequences is the guiding factor.”
Rosana prays for the Chief Justice’s removal from office based on this constitutional provision. The petition highlights a significant incident that occurred on January 18, 2024, when the Supreme Court’s full seven-judge bench issued a letter, referred to as “the Communication,” terminating Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi’s right to appear before the Court.
The Registrar of the Supreme Court informed Ahmednasir that the justices had decided he could not appear before the Court, whether in person, through his firm’s employees, or through anyone acting on his instructions.
RELATED – Ahmednasir’s Conditions for Reconciliation with Supreme Court Following CJ Koome’s Rejection of His Ksh. 2B Land Case
On January 22, 2024, an associate from Ahmednasir’s law firm attempted to appear before Deputy Registrar Bernard Kasavuli but was denied an audience based on the earlier communication. Rosana argues that Chief Justice Koome’s leadership in this decision reveals her incompetence and asserts that she alone is responsible for the fallout.
He has based his petition on several accounts that further illustrate his concerns about the Chief Justice’s fitness for office.
Account 1: Rosana argues that, with over 15 years of experience as a superior court judge, the Chief Justice should have anticipated that implementing the decision outlined in the Communication could be challenged under the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015.
Account 2: He also notes that the Chief Justice failed to apply the fundamental principle that no one can be a judge in his own case (nemo judex in causa sua), especially since all the judges of the Supreme Court have been sued at the High Court in Petition E026 of 2024.
Account 3: Rosana asserts that as President of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice has initiated a constitutional crisis that will embarrass the Judiciary and undermine the administration of justice, regardless of how long it may take for Petition E026 of 2024 to reach the Supreme Court.
Account 4: He emphasizes that the Chief Justice could have guided the Supreme Court bench toward more respectful options that would have avoided these regrettable scenarios.
Account 5: Finally, Rosana warns that the Chief Justice has established a dangerous precedent regarding the right of audience for counsel.
“If the Supreme Court can deny audience to counsel without considering the potential consequences or the proper legal options available,” he states, “it raises serious concerns about the fairness and integrity of our judicial system.”
