New Judiciary trend inspires hope corruption about to die

The recent arrest of Treasury Cabinet Secretary Henry Rotich, his Principal Secretary Kamau Thugge and several other top ranking public officers last week awakened the nation to a sense of seriousness and resolve never seen before in the fight against corruption.

The Executive had shown it meant every part of its word by giving up those within it who were frustrating its mission to stop corruption.

The officers would soon be charged in court and, as the President had earlier promised, the CS and PS would subsequently be relieved of their duties.

Then Justice Mumbi Ngugi happened.

On July 24, Justice Ngugi ruled that governors charged with economic crimes ought to vacate office for the duration of their trial.

Though she was presiding over a completely different matter, Justice Mumbi’s declaration must be acknowledged as very important in the war against corruption and other office related crimes.

In the ruling, Justice Ngugi held that governors, just like other civil servants, should step aside once charged for a criminal offence and their roles completely taken over by their deputies for the duration of the trial.

It should be common sense, really. But, somehow, a governor facing very serious abuse of office charges had gone to Mumbi’s court to appeal against another court’s ruling that had barred him from accessing that same office!

The judge was arbitrating in an application by Samburu Governor Moses Lenolkulal who had sought to have his bail terms reviewed after the trial court forbade him from entering his office for the duration of his trial for alleged corruption.

In pursuing another opportunity to abuse the office he had been accused of abusing, the governor and his legal team quoted section 62(6) of the Anti-corruption and Economic Crimes Act (ACECA) that protects State officers from stepping aside from office while under prosecution for criminal charges.

It is imperative to note that this particular section of the law was deliberately formulated to protect the lawmakers, the Members of Parliament. But to look a little unselfish, the MPs framed it with phrases such as state officers and elected and constitutional office holders.

Luckily, judge Mumbi saw through this trickery and declared this part of the law unconstitutional.

While turning down the request by Lenolkulal to revise the earlier ruling by Chief Magistrate Teresa Murigi, Judge Mumbi wondered, like I do:

“After promulgating the Constitution with the national values and principles at Article 10 and the clear provisions on leadership and integrity in Chapter Six, could the people of Kenya have intended to then pass legislation that allowed state officers, for whom grounds for removal from office are provided in the Constitution, to ride roughshod over the integrity required of leaders, face prosecution in court over their alleged corrupt dealings, and still continue to enjoy the trappings of office as they face corruption charges alleged to have been committed while in office and committed within the said offices?  Could the people of Kenya have wished to have their legislative authority, which they have delegated, under Article 1, to the legislature, to be exercised in such a way as to pass legislative provisions such as section 62(6) of ACECA that allow state officers whose removal is provided for in the Constitution to remain in the same offices that they are alleged to have abused and used to their personal enrichment to the detriment of the public they are supposed to serve while undergoing prosecution for such offences?”

I don’t think so, and I am sure, neither do the majority of well-meaning Kenyans.

It’s rulings like these by Chief Magistrate Murigi, Justice Mumbi and lately Chief Magistrate Lawrence Mugambi, without forgetting Douglas Ogoti who rightly described corruption as being worse than terrorism, inspiring hope that, at some point, corruption in Kenya will die.

We need to celebrate these gallant officers of the Judiciary.