Chief Justice Dr Willy Mutunga’s reactions to critics of the Supreme Court ruling on the presidential election petition is unfortunate and disturbing. First, these reactions erode his credibility and undermining him the value and esteem Kenyans and international community had bestowed on him.
While it may be his constitutional rights to react to his critics, I believe his choice of language and the swift response were temperamental.
It defeats reason and logic for the CJ to engage in a such tirade, especially on a social media with his critics while he is fully aware that the work of a judge entails criticism both constructive and destructive especially from a losing side.
The same scenario is always captured in a football match where the referees sometimes are castigated and called names by the fans of the loosing team, but it is quite rare to see the referee engaging the unruly crowd in a tirade. My humble advice to the learned friend is that he should not just throw a blanket condemnation to his critics because of the following reasons.
One, by the virtue of being the president of the Supreme Court, whose judgment is final and cannot be appealed against, it doesn’t mean he is immune from committing mistakes in his verdicts.
And what is wrong if people can use other available avenues to express their opinion now that the judgment cannot be appealed anywhere?
Two, the ruling of the presidential petition by the Supreme Court has far reaching implications within and without, and is likely to be used as a frame of references by the law scholars who will be handling similar cases in future, therefore, it is not wrong when there is constructive criticism to point out flaws that other law scholars feel the court overlooked.
Three, the Supreme Court ruling has not only just aroused criticism from within, but has also irked some international groups especially from some of Africa’s distinguished law scholars.
Last but not least, when the CJ gave his record ruling of less than five minutes, which Kenyans had waited for with bated breath, he promised to give a detailed judgment for public perusal, so what did he expect after the perusal?
And as a scholar, I believe he knows better that after presenting a research paper you don’t expect it to be indefinite on that particular issue but to generate new knowledge over the same. What is wrong with the public generating new knowledge over his ruling?
CJ should open up to criticism, as this is the only way to learn and improve.
Muhangani Shilovele, Nairobi
