Listen to This Article Enhance your reading experience by listening to this article.

The Judiciary will be allowed to employ additional 15 Court of Appeal judges to enable it deal with a backlog of cases, if a proposal by the National Assembly’s Justice and Legal Affairs Committee (JLAC) sail through.

The JLAC committee chaired by Tharaka MP George Murugara has proposed amendments to the Judicature Act that will see the number of Court of Appeal judges increased to a maximum of 45 up from the current 30.

In a report, JLAC proposed that the Judiciary be allowed to employ 15 more judges, not 45 that they had asked for.

“As a compromise the committee would be open to increasing the number of the court to a maximum of 45 Judges of Appeal. This represents a 50 per cent increase of the current maximum number of judges that may be appointed to the court of appeal,” reads the report of the committee.

In its argument, the committee noted that the increment takes into account the current caseload of the court and the fact that the court establishes panels of three judges per matter.

“The committee noted that in order to further reduce case backlog, the court would need to be more efficient and leverage on the technology,” he said.

The decision of the committee came after the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) also rejected the proposal saying the amendment would occasion additional expenditure to the public.

Economic crimes

The move comes barely two months after the Judiciary in its annual Report for the financial year 2021/22, said that 404,312 cases were filed in the courts, with a case clearance rate of 94 per cent.

However, 678,697 cases were pending before the courts at the end of the financial year.

Meanwhile the committee has rejected a proposal by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) to amend Section 62 of the Anti-Corruption and Economics Crimes Act to allow the commission to apply to a court to bar a State officer from accessing their office if they are charged with corruption or an economic crimes and are likely to either conceal, alter, destroy or remove records, documents or other evidence, intimidate threaten or interfere with witnesses.

In its argument, the committee noted that even in the absence of the proposed amendments, the commission and the ODPP still retain the right to seek the intervention of the court in the event they obtain evidence of concealment, alteration, destruction or removal of records, documents or other evidence.

“The committee agreed with the view that prejudicing a person who has not been charged could unfairly affect the person’s constitutional rights. The committee therefore proposed deletion of the amendment,” said the committee in the report.

The rejection of the proposed amendment by the committee comes after the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) also opposed the amendment on grounds that it infringes on the right to fair hearing under article 50 (2) of the Constitution.

According to the ODPP the insertion of a new article (6A) as proposed by the commission should only apply to individuals who have been charged.