We are not guilty, Judiciary defends itself in graft war

The Judiciary has defended itself against claims that it is the weak link in the fight against corruption.

In response to President Uhuru Kenyatta's stern rebuke over slow pace in dealing with graft, the institution yesterday pointed an accusing finger at the prosecution, led by Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Keriako Tobiko, and lawyers for failing to avail witnesses when required.

The Judiciary indicated that the so-called "big fish cases" have a large number of witnesses, some with more than 100, thus slowing the pace of their determination.

"Most of the cases are fixed on day-to-day basis. The cases that have stalled are due to several factors, which include investigations and prosecutorial issues," Chief Magistrate in charge of anti-corruption court Kennedy Bidali said. "We have back to back hearings. What happens when a witness does not appear? the trial has to derail."

In Milimani Courts, Bidali said only 124 cases relating to corruption allegations are still pending. Five of the cases were halted by High Court orders.

He said orders sought by the accused persons to stop prosecution was a right, and a factor the courts could not ignore.

"There are multiple applications which are filed. Kenyans have a right to be heard and for the rest of the cases which have no injunctions, the trials are continuing," said Bidali.

He said this year alone, the DPP had presented to courts only 14 cases touching on corruption.

According to statistics from the Judiciary, 84 per cent of the cases in courts are halted for reasons relating to witnesses, prosecutors or both.

The Judiciary said most of the time, cases are adjourned because of failure by witnesses to show up or generally due to lack of preparedness in the course of hearings.

Witnesses, the Judiciary says, contribute to delay of 23 per cent of cases. According to the figures, 18.9 per cent of the time, the witnesses are absent and 4.4 per cent come to court when they are not ready.

For prosecutors, on the other hand, according to the Judiciary statistics, 20 per cent cases adjourned either due to the prosecution being unprepared or missing in court when the cases come up for hearing.

A prosecutor will ask for adjournment on account of not being ready in 18 per cent of the cases and will not appear in court for at least in two per cent of the cases the court adjourned.

"I do not think there is a lacuna in the administration of justice in regard to the Judiciary," Bidali said.

According to the statistics, 18 per cent of cases were adjourned due to both the prosecution and the defence not showing up for hearing.

Advocates in defence have contributed to at least 10 per cent cases being adjourned for being unprepared or missing in courts. At least four per cent cases adjournment is due to submissions not being ready.

According to the statistics, only 10 per cent of cases have been adjourned by the courts without any application by the parties.

A file missing contributes to at least two per cent of adjournments and one per cent of the cases have not been determined on time due a judgment or ruling not being ready.

Another reason given for the slow pace was that judges and magistrates still use old methods of writing cases in court on foolscap. Bidali said if there were digital recording machines in courts, then the work would be easier and faster.

The Judiciary statistics were gathered between May and August this year.