Current law applies in judges’ retirement case

Three Supreme Court judges are, according to media reports, on a go-slow in protest against the Judicial Service Commission over a standoff between the JSC and justices Kalpana Rawal and Philip Tunoi regarding their retirement age.

The action by the three - Mohamed Ibrahim, Jackton Ojwang’ and Njoki Ndung’u (pictured) - is an affront to the high reputation that the Supreme Court of Kenya symbolises.

Regardless of the standoff, the go-slow taken by the trio, puts into disrepute the image and dignity of the Supreme Court and the whole judicial system in the country.

The argument that since the judges were appointed under the former constitutional order, they should be allowed to retire at the age of 74, is not logical.

The judges took a fresh oath of office upon the proclamation of the current Constitution and they should have appreciated the full implication of this action.

In the first place, they could not adjudicate any matter based on the current Constitution, and other statutes founded upon this Constitution had they failed or declined to take the oath in question.

Secondly, they were also undertaking to comply with the provisions within this Constitution, which require them to retire under the age of 70.