Post by OtishOtish on Nov 5, 2014 22:55:44 GMT 3
The court has taken quite a bit of flak, but this decision is an excellent one:
www.nation.co.ke/news/Judges-Vetting-Board-Sacking-Supreme-Court/-/1056/2512496/-/138puhuz/-/index.html
The real problem that will remain is that the vetting has been a process of weeding out the worst, and it does not necessarily ensure that those who remain are any good---a bit like taking a class full of F and D students and sending home all those with a grade of D- and below ... some Ds still remain. And the Ds and Cs have been busy ...
The Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association, some parts of the High Court, and some parts of the Court of Appeal show that reforming the judiciary will continue to be a challenge even after the conclusion of the vetting process. The first of these groups had a case in the High Court to the effect that the vetting could not take into account any bad behaviour that occurred before 2010. The High Court agreed, and so did the Court of Appeal. Of course, that is an absurd position. That any judge should take it seriously shows that there are still many funny judges left in both courts. Equally absurd was the view taken by the two courts that they have the power to interfere with the decisions of the Vetting Board: the law is quite clear that they don't.
The whole basis of the vetting process is that rotten judges and magistrates should be sent home and that the process will, as one imagines it should, raise public confidence in the judiciary. So, it is outrageous to say that any rot that was shown before the new constitution came into force must ignored. Today's ruling suggests that the Supreme Court will not buy any such nonsense, and that its (pending) decision on the "cut-off date" will leave the Vetting Board alone to finish its work.
The Supreme Court has done very well in today's decision. Good job, Dr. Studs!
www.nation.co.ke/news/Judges-Vetting-Board-Sacking-Supreme-Court/-/1056/2512496/-/138puhuz/-/index.html
The real problem that will remain is that the vetting has been a process of weeding out the worst, and it does not necessarily ensure that those who remain are any good---a bit like taking a class full of F and D students and sending home all those with a grade of D- and below ... some Ds still remain. And the Ds and Cs have been busy ...
The Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association, some parts of the High Court, and some parts of the Court of Appeal show that reforming the judiciary will continue to be a challenge even after the conclusion of the vetting process. The first of these groups had a case in the High Court to the effect that the vetting could not take into account any bad behaviour that occurred before 2010. The High Court agreed, and so did the Court of Appeal. Of course, that is an absurd position. That any judge should take it seriously shows that there are still many funny judges left in both courts. Equally absurd was the view taken by the two courts that they have the power to interfere with the decisions of the Vetting Board: the law is quite clear that they don't.
The whole basis of the vetting process is that rotten judges and magistrates should be sent home and that the process will, as one imagines it should, raise public confidence in the judiciary. So, it is outrageous to say that any rot that was shown before the new constitution came into force must ignored. Today's ruling suggests that the Supreme Court will not buy any such nonsense, and that its (pending) decision on the "cut-off date" will leave the Vetting Board alone to finish its work.
The Supreme Court has done very well in today's decision. Good job, Dr. Studs!