Starving Judiciary of cash will hurt justice

EDITORIAL

By EDITORIAL
More by this Author

The Judiciary is facing a major financial and logistical crisis that threatens to undermine the administration of justice.

For three years or so, it has been subjected to severe budget cuts that put heavy constraints on its work and reversed gains in adjudication of cases and clearing of the perennial backlog.

In the current financial year, the Judiciary has been allocated Sh17 billion, just slightly over half of the Sh31 billion it had asked for. It was the same situation last year and, despite intense lobbying and even a pledge by the Executive, it was not increased.

Now, the Judicial Service Commission has issued a warning that court operations are bound to grind to a halt unless the government raises subventions. Already, tribunals that deal with specific judicial matters have been rendered inoperative due to lack of funds.

The judicial tribunals provide vital services, dealing with specific cases such as political, land, environment and rent disputes.

Advertisement

Offering quasi-legal services, they augment the work of courts and help to expedite matters that would otherwise take long to resolve. Their effectiveness is pertinent in the broad goal of speeding arbitration and enhancing access to justice.

For the Judiciary, the misfortunes are coming in droves. Besides cash cuts, President Kenyatta has declined to gazette some 41 judges vetted and approved by the JSC and the matter is being litigated in court, so we cannot discuss it.

But the substantive point is that the Judiciary is short-staffed and, without additional judges, it is too constrained to deliver its mandate. This adds to the case backlog that has subjected it to incessant criticism.

Put together, there is a thread running across the tribulations facing the Judiciary. It is not accidental. Kenyans are alive to the threat made by President Kenyatta in 2017 after the Supreme Court nullified his re-election.

He emphatically stated that his Jubilee administration would “revisit” the ruling, a subtle but loaded threat to the Judiciary. That meant the Executive would revenge at the opportune time, which seems to have arrived.

Generally, there is a deep aversion for the Judiciary and matters have been made worse by the fact that the courts have thrown out several suits lodged by the State, especially on corruption, with the latter accusing the former of sabotaging the anti-graft fight.

The truth is that the Judiciary is a threat to the Executive and the strategy is to whittle down its powers through budget cuts and understaffing and render it helpless.

The State has to provide adequate funding and human resource to the Judiciary so that it can play its rightful role in efficient and expeditious administration of justice.


Credit: Source link