NAIROBI: There was uproar when President Uhuru Kenyatta asked those selected in the 2014 police recruitment to report to police colleges for training.
The High Court had earlier declared the relevant recruitment a nullity after a group went to court citing malpractice in some of the stations.
The speed at which the debate was left to wither is strange.
Mr Kenyatta acted within the law as he exercised the juridical power bestowed on the Executive arm of the government as known in law and clearly captured in chapters One, Nine and 14 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.
This entails the arrangement and representation of power which, when correctly interpreted and exercised properly, enhances the rule of law.
The rule of law is not the preserve of courts alone. It is a shared responsibility by the Executive and the Legislature.
Eminent writers on Constitutionalism have opined that even the latter two arms of government do interpret the law in the course of discharging their primary functions.
It is by such constitutional means that the President acted in issuing the directive. It was not a roadside pronouncement, but a statement of significance in law.
The fault is elsewhere and more so for those who are busy looking the other way when the drums of change are beating a different tune.
By the way, were the recruits found to have been participants in the alleged corruption and irregularities, forming the stratagem of the court reasoning which ultimately led to the annulment of the recruitment and barring of admission to training colleges?
The Court did not ask and answer this question in its decision and it appears the recruits were and may therefore remain condemned unheard.
A call for a repeat was not lawful in the face of monumental evidence that majority were recruited in accordance with the law.
I believe the hullabaloo about alleged contempt was a scaremonger that unfortunately, the Executive fell prey to.
The courts should at all times make or pronounce orders that can stand the test of time and respect.
The action by Mr Kenyatta initially received support from the most unlikely quarter, in the person of Raila Odinga, who stated that extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures.
My considered view is that public interest and policy demands that anything else, including lawful edicts from the courts but which over time become impossible to enforce without coercion, can and should be disregarded on account of serious intervening and altered circumstances.
The true position is that only 36 stations were, according to the evidence tabled in Court, affected by the alleged corruption and irregularities and hence the rest of thousands of recruits should have been allowed to start their training a long time ago in public interest, which unfortunately the court missed to consider but since the matter is pending decision by the Court of Appeal, there is little I can say.
The route taken by the President was correct given the lethargy by those mandated to competently handle, consider and dispense with such matters without forcing others to intervene to fill the voids created for no cause.
The events revolving around terrorism and extremism are extraordinary circumstances calling for extraordinary measures. The contempt of court proceedings may not have been the way to go given the circumstances.
Public interest envisaged by the Constitution is premised on the cardinal principle that no person or government official can legally perform an act that tends to injure the public. Security is one of those matters.
If courts were always responsive to public expectations, rulings and judgements on matters bearing greater public interest ought to be dealt with urgently without delay.
Our judges and magistrates, therefore, require training on new interdisciplinary policy to be introduced and imparted quickly.
Public administration is generally absent from legal circles in the country.
Policy influences law immensely. Judicial managers had better take note which of our judges and lawyers shall gain experiential education for real world problem solving. It is the next logical step.
President Kenyatta's action is a perfect example of government action in public interest.
What became of the rule under which judges and magistrates are expected to deliver rulings and judgements upon conclusion of hearings within a specified time frame? This is an aspect of public policy intended to aid in the disposal of cases expeditiously.
The input of our labour on public matters determines the outcomes and their effect, impact and acceptability as per the National Values in Article 10 of the Constitution.
Courts derive their power from the people and must objectively apply the principles of interpretation of the law to obviate the gridlock threatening to halt execution of legitimate affairs of the State.
The President gave up too soon, I guess on the basis of skewed legal advice primed on wrong interpretation of the law, but the debate on the 2014 recruitment shall remain in the realm of history as a subject of great public interest for lawyers and public policy makers.
