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

Some lawyers have poured cold water on the petition to remove Chief Justice Martha Koome and all Supreme Court judges, saying it is laden with hearsay and little evidence of alleged corruption.

Former Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Nelson Havi filed a petition to the Judiciary Service Commission (JSC) to compel President William Ruto to form a tribunal to oust the judges, accusing them of gross misconduct.

Last week, CJ Koome also dismissed calls for her resignation, stating that she had yet to receive any valid reason compelling her to step down.

“You asked whether I would resign; I will also ask you, why would I resign? I was appointed to serve for a tenure, and you have not given me the reason why you would want me to resign,” said Koome.

She added: “We need to tell Kenyans that you cannot pay for government services, you cannot pay for justice, and you cannot pay for judicial services because we are paid by the taxpayers’ money.”

Critics have however maintained that Havi has simply regurgitated the complaints made by Ahmednasir Abdullahi about being banned from appearing before the Supreme Court.

“Apart from the strange decision to bar all the advocates in S.C Ahmednassir’s firm from appearing before the court, I don’t find anything else weighty enough to be worthy of this discourse or indeed to lead to the removal of a judge of the Supreme Court,” advocate Eric Muriuki posted on X.

He added: “To be honest, I expected to see a smoking gun in the said affidavit, maybe some evidence of a judge receiving or asking for a bribe; CCTV footage of a judge receiving a bribe… None of that is in there. The affidavit is underwhelming.”

Another X user termed the petition as verbose submissions, adding that a majority of the 253 pages are laden with hearsay.

Constitutional issues

Senior Counsel Wilfred Nderitu said some aspects of Havi’s affidavit raises several constitutional issues and make direct reference to various Articles of the Constitution.

“Given that the High Court Petition which declared the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional was fixed by Omwanza Ombati, now a commissioner of JSC, it will be interesting to see how JSC will handle Havi’s Complaint, at least on this aspect of the complaint,” he said.

Lawyer Caxstone Kigata of Wamae & Allen LLP also said that the burden of proof in Havi’s petition has not been borne as expected.

“The JSC should have no difficulty summarily dismissing this petition as it discloses none of the grounds for removal of a judge. It is trite law that whoever alleges must prove. Therefore, the Petitioner had the burden of shouldering the burden of proving his wild allegations with cogent evidence,” said Kigata.

Kigata said that on the allegations of corruption, not a single evidence has been provided “but is only supported by the fact that he believes what Ahmednassir SC told him.

“In other words, the petitioner wants us to remove all the judges of the Supreme Court on the basis of hearsay evidence of his friends,” Kigata said.

“Other allegations on the barring of Ahmednasir and the rebuke of Havi, Esther Ang’awa and Ahmednasir during the Building Bridges Initiative cases have mostly been exaggerated,” he added.

Equally, lawyer and media personality Tony Gachoka whose pending court matter is quoted in the petition by Havi has also distanced himself from the push to remove the judges.

“I have found that Havi has quoted me extensively in his complaint because of my case which is a matter of legal precedent. I want to say categorically that I stand with the Judiciary,” Gachoka said in a recorded video.

According to Gachoka, there seems to be a well-orchestrated scheme to mislead the Kenyan people into a rash and arbitrary decision to purge the Supreme Court judges.

When the clamour to oust judges started in late 2024, the Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association issued a statement calling out Ahmednasir and Havi of attempting to intimidate the Judiciary.

KMJA President Justice Stephen Radido said they had analysed the online attacks and concluded that they were meant to intimidate the Judiciary.’

“Their systemic nature, execution and sustained onslaught demonstrate an unorthodox and unconstitutional attempt to intimidate the Judiciary, its leadership, judges, and magistrates to advance a self-serving agenda,”