On Chief Justice post, gender rule against women

The current vacancies in the Supreme Court have once again re-ignited interests in the gender discussions within the court.

The questionable one third has to be maintained of course, to ensure that there will be a minimum of two persons of the same gender within the Supreme Court.

Judging by Kenya’s social fabric, the statement technically serves to ensure there are two women in the Supreme Court.

There is room of course for more female judges to get into the Supreme Court. However, the possibility of having a female Chief Justice is a long shot in the future.

And the blame lies squarely on the Judicial Service Commission. JSC has made it known that the incoming CJ and DCJ will not be from the same gender.

While this may look to have valid interests in protecting the recognition of both genders – and, let’s be honest, somehow hinged on affirmative action – the end result will be that it will take longer for a woman to be a CJ if the principle is to be standardised.

It takes simple logic. It is already known that the next CJ will be a man judging on the fact that none of them applied for the DCJ position. Since the DCJ automatically will be female, JSC will sadly have to technically disqualify the highly competent Roselyne Nambuye.