Katwa Kigen's bid for Supreme Court bench hounded by Ruto links

Justice Katwa Kigen during the JSC interview for the position of Supreme Court Judge at the Milimani courts on 28th April 2026. [David Gichuru, Standard]

'Nemo iudex in causa sua' is a principle in law that translates to one cannot be a judge in his own case. This was one of the objections that Court of Appeal Judge Katwa Kigen was faced with over his relationship with President William Ruto.

Justice Kigen was hard-pressed on two matters his association with President Ruto and calls for impartiality, and his desire to sit at the Supreme Court despite being months old in the judiciary.

Katwa fought claims presented before the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) that he would not be impartial when his former client, the president, would appear before him.

Court of Appeal Judge Fatuma Sichale informed Katwa that the JSC had, on April 8, 2026, received a letter opposing his candidature.

She said that those opposed to his candidature expressed concerns that he would not be impartial when his former client, the president, would appear before him.

Katwa first admitted that President Ruto was his client. He then pointed out that the commission had not given him a copy to enable him to respond in writing and a structured manner.

However, asserted that he was his own man, adding that despite the Head of State being known to him and acting on his behalf, he had a stand.

The judge asked the commission to assess him not based on knowing someone, but on what his stand is and his experience.

“I have indeed represented him, and may I say, I intend to be objective and neutral as a judge. I want to give my assurance that I will deal with facts and the law. I am aware that the concern has been, and that is why I was suspicious of what the letter is, and I must complain that you did not share so that I can have a more structured response,” said Katwa.

While rallying for an equal test for all, Katwa further replied that it would be unfair to judge him with a mindset that he was the President’s lawyer.

He argued that of the 50 per cent of judges at the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, who moved to the judiciary from the bench represented clients in a case or cases during their practice and the bar. According to him, it is not any different for him and Ruto.

“Right from the High Court, the Supreme Court, I have looked at the totality of judges, and you’ll almost say 50 per cent of them were lawyers, and so for me to be told that you have a disadvantage because you represented a particular individual would be a borderline of discrimination. Every other person who escalated is not being subjected to the same. I would urge you to look at me for what I stand for, integrity, fairness and justice, and I will apply the law objectively,” he added.

Sichale then asked Katwa what would happen if the President were on the ballot and a petition were filed before the apex court.

In response, he said that even when he was serving the president, he was not a 'yes-sir' man.

“I insist that I should be taken for what I am and what I say, being objective. My relationship with His Excellency is not that I always said yes to everything he wanted or wished for and so it has never taken my objectivity away, but I understand your question to be more of perception of third parties so I want to again say the frontline, I should be taken for what I represent, that I intend to be objective and fair and that issue of recusal should be the last option. Even as I am being put to take, please take on board the unfairness of the concern and the unfairness of the question because of the person I represented, a criterion not being applied to other candidates.”

“The Supreme Court workload is not limited to only presidential petitions; there is other work that the Supreme Court has. He said that in the event issues may be raised about him, once representing the president, there is an option for recusal,” said Katwa.

Commissioner Caroline Nzilani also questioned Katwa on impartiality. She suggested that he was highly recommended and knew people in high places.

She asked if he got a call from a high office about a case, what would he do?

Katwa smiled and replied that he would apply the law, adding that he would remain faithful to the oath of office and the constitution.

“Would you honour such a call?” pressed Nzilani.

He replied with a no. “ I wouldn’t,” he said.

Ruto appointed Justice Kigen alongside 15 other judges on January 27 this year.

Chief Justice Martha Koome, at the start of the interview, opened the floor for questions by asking the Judge whether the commission’s nomination of him for the position at the Supreme Court would be a breach of the Human Resource rules, which require a person to serve at a position for six months before consideration for a promotion.

“We were here not long ago, and I think the challenge I have is what question to ask you because we recently interviewed you successfully for the Judge of the Court of Appeal, and you have hardly been there for three months. You understand the HR practice, at least one stays in a job for six months to be evaluated for promotion…” she posed.

He admitted that he had recently joined the bench barely three months ago.

But while defending his suitability, Justice Katwa argued that he believed that his bid to succeed Justice Mohamed Ibrahim was not about a promotion, but his qualification and suitability to sit in the apex court.

“I know you have asked that I have not been there for at least six months to qualify for promotion. I am here not for that but for the evaluation of the eligibility of the Supreme Court Judge. I am not here for a promotion; I am here for whether I am competent. I have also observed that persons have come to the Supreme Court from outside. The judiciary is not a stepping stone for a person to be at the Supreme Court,’ said Katwa.

Justice Koome pressed Katwa further. She first asked Katwa if he was happy, serving at the second highest in the land, to which he answered in the affirmative.

Katwa was also asked about the balance between technology and access to justice. He said that technology deployed ought to factor in persons who are disadvantaged and ought to be modern, to ensure the systems are not prone to cyber-attacks.

The judge asserted that when judges are faced with political questions, being faithful to the law and diligence are the solutions to ensure courts maintain their institutional legitimacy.

Justice Koome also asked Katwa about his income and wealth declaration. She said that he had filed the same document that he used in his Court of Appeal application.

He said that the status of his assets had not changed when he applied for the top court. Katwa added that it was within the same period.