By Wahome Thuku
A decision to nullify the dismissal of two senior judges through the on-going vetting and to vet them afresh has raised legal questions.
Lawyers are questioning the basis upon which the Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board decided to subject Supreme Court judge Mohammed Ibrahim and Roselyn Nambuye of the Court of Appeal to a fresh vetting.
The board chaired by Sharad Rao made the decision to nullify its July decision after the two judges pushed their case for review.
The board, however, sent home another High Court judge Joyce Khaminwa and also rejected an application for review by her colleague Jeanne Gacheche.
It also cleared three Court of Appeal judges Martha Koome, David Maraga, and Kalpana Rawal declaring them fit to continue serving.
“There is no provision in the Constitution for fresh vetting or fresh interview. Neither the Constitution nor the Vetting of Judges and Magistrates Act envisages such a decision,” said lawyer Fred Athuok, one of the lawyers representing Justice Ibrahim before the board.
Athuok argued that once the board had nullified the decision declaring a judge unfit to continue serving, it could not subject him to another round of vetting.
In his application for review, Justice Ibrahim claimed one member of the panel that vetted him had been biased. The member had sent a text message to advocates on July defending the decision to send the judge packing.
Rao said in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the panel and the board had decided the vetting of the judge be nullified in the interest of justice.
“The chairman of the board will constitute a panel to interview the judge afresh,” said Rao.
On Nambuye’s review, the board acknowledged it had erred in determining that she had not submitted an audit of all her outstanding judgements while she had done so during the vetting.
