Nairobi — Lawyer Charles Kanjama has defended Chief Justice Martha Koome over reports that she wants President Uhuru Kenyatta impeached for violating the law.
While referring to Koome's appeal relating to the pending appointment of six judges, Kanjama termed the impeachment reports by a section of the media as erroneous.
President Kenyatta appointed 34 out of the 41 JSC recommended judges in June 2020 but declined to clear the nomination of Justices Aggrey Muchelule, George Odunga, Weldon Korir and Prof Joel Ngugi who were to join the Court of Appeal, and Chief Magistrate Makori Evans Kiago and High Court Registrar Judith Omange who were promoted by the JSC to serve as High Court judges.
The Judges who were recommended by JSC in July 2019 for appointment to the Court of Appeal, the Environment and Land Court and the Employment and Labor Relations Court formed the basis of Maraga's frustrations.
In his defense, the Head of State claimed he had adverse intelligence reports on the six judges and that they are not fit to hold office.
In the appeal case which was filed in April 26, 2022, Kanjama explained that Koome who is an appellant in the matter merely held that the "the cure for violation of the Constitution is impeachment of the President or any other order that secures his direct accountability to the Court".
Koome explained herself in the petition which was filed by Katiba Institute that sought to compel her to assume the appointive role and swear-in the six Judges.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
A three-Judge bench on October 2021 in the Katiba Institute petition directed President Kenyatta to appoint the six Judges within 14 days failure to which the Judges would be deemed appointed.
Upon the expiry of the 14 days the High Court later ruled that Koome and the Judicial Service Commission were at liberty to appoint the Judges but the Apex Court Judge moved to the Court of Appeal where the verdict was stayed.
Kanjama who represents Koome in the appeal case has maintained that his client has always been consistent that "the role of appointing judges is given in the Constitution to the President and not the Chief Justice".
"It would create an unfortunate two-tier system in the Judiciary if some judges came into office without presidential appointment," Kanjama added.
The appeal is yet to be heard and determined.
