Kenyans have placed great faith in the Judiciary as the Supreme Court gets down to hear this year’s presidential election petition. It will be remembered that lack of confidence in the Judiciary was among the causes of the 2007/08 post-election violence. One of the parties in the election refused to seek arbitration in the courts over claims that the Judiciary was beholden to the Executive. The Judiciary has undertaken major reforms since to improve its credibility.

Low faith in the courts in 2007 was partly informed by the fact that judges were seen as appointees of the State. Corruption was entrenched in the corridors of justice. In some instances, justice was sold to the highest bidder. Whereas major strides have been taken to redress this, restoring public faith in courts still remains a journey rather than a destination.   

For instance, the 2010 Constitution sought to cure some of the challenges that were identified by the post-election peace mediation team, notably the independence of the Judiciary. One of them was the vetting of judges and a re-imagined Judicial Service Commission with powers to run the justice system. Despite the enduring rivalry between the three arms of government, the Judiciary has protected its space by making bold decisions, some of them against the Executive.

Among the hallmarks of the Constitution is the creation of the Supreme Court. The court has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes relating to the presidential elections.

Kenyans will this week be glued to their television sets monitoring the presidential election dispute. The country has been treated to high-voltage accusations by the aggrieved parties. The dispute now rests with the seven judges who are set to commence marathon hearings today. Whereas their capacity to handle the cases is not in doubt, it was worrying that some parties have persisted in making comments on the merits of the case outside the courtroom, thus raising public anxiety.

 Indeed, religious leaders have cautioned parties to stop prosecuting the matter out of court.  There have been social media commentaries touching on the persons of the judges and the court. This poses a dangerous trend that should be checked before it become norm. All must respect the Judiciary and its officers and give them time and space to discharge their mandate. 

It is encouraging that the main petitioners have pledged they will accept and abide by the decision of the court, which is the final arbiter in the petition.  We urge all parties to exercise restraint and allow  judges undertake their job.