JSC's transparency during job interviews is commendable

Kenya is a country of many challenges in law, democracy and governance amidst a reassuring Constitution that teaches us whenever it is tested in courts, that it can endure the most trying of times. Just like in the nature of humanity, we often do not appreciate our successes enough. Instead, our ills spread and dominate discourses in whatever sphere of our societal fabric. This is the fate that befalls our judiciary. What is the state of our judiciary in its role as the ultimate arbitrator of our societal law and policy challenges and disputes?

The answer to this question depends on who you ask. To a section of the legal practitioners, our judiciary is at its lowest. One wonders, at what point in our history was it at its highest. I digress. The point here is that even if we agree on the degree of success of the judiciary, we can at least agree on one thing. That is, if the three different arms of government were to be put on a scale of whatever nature on the fidelity to the Constitution and discharge of their duties to the people of Kenya, the judiciary will undeniably be at the top. This is an assessment that should easily come out of any objective and honest citizen.

Any public institution that vows fidelity to the Constitution must abide by accountability as a core value and principle under Article 10 of the Constitution. I have previously on this platform argued that judicial accountability is non-negotiable but the same can only be done through a path that is not counterproductive to the Constitution itself. That is through unsupported, general and non-particularised claims with no iota of evidence.

When such is given a fertile ground to breed, the public confidence in the judiciary as the custodian of justice is eroded and if eroded, the ugly head of history threatens to repeat. 2007 electoral chronicles is evidence despite the Court of Appeal existing then as the highest court in the land.

Fast forward, for about two weeks now, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has conducted publicly televised interviews on its online platforms for the Court of Appeal judges. The Commission advertised for the positions on June 9, 2025, a window of applications was opened until July 7, 2025 where 94 candidates applied for the position. The Commission reviewed the applications and shortlisted 35 candidates on October 22, 2025 and interviews were scheduled from January 12, 2026 to January 21, 2026.

My take is that in the Court of Appeal interviews, the JSC, with its many other challenges especially disciplining of judges, is nevertheless a body that introspects, reflects and takes feedback seriously for further reforms. I arrive at this conclusion for several reasons.

First, it is no brainer to remember that our judicial history is darkness that is unmatched with a few sunny days in between like Chief Justice Madan QC and some brave voices from the bar who stood when it was most inconvenient to do so across the three regimes before the promulgation of the Constitution. That past emboldened opacity in judicial appointments, obscurity and pendulum standards in qualifications, targeted political considerations and the list is endless.

With that in mind, it is fresh air to watch JSC conducting interviews that are televised to the general public and there exists wide discourse on different social media platforms from ordinary citizens on which candidates they think qualify for appointment. Maybe one may argue that that is expected within the spirit of our beautiful national charter, which is true. I highlight it for this piece because the judiciary cannot on their own blow their trumpet, but also the point I raised earlier, one mistake or arguable mistake for the judiciary may blow up the national discourse but not a single act of constitutional compliance would.

Secondly, the quality, rigour and diversity of the questions and areas tested for the Court of Appeal interviews would make SC Nzamba Kitonga to smile in his grave. The last time JSC conducted interviews for appointment of judicial officers, there was an inflow of feedback especially on the nature and quality of questions asked. The concern that many of the questions required ‘memory off the book’ clear-cut answers and did not provide any opportunity for critical thinking and nuanced engagement of the law by the candidates.

Anyone who keenly paid attention to the interviews would easily tell that, more often than not, even direct answer questions had critical follow up on mind-thrilling and interrogative issues that go to the core of judgecraft ranging from procedural to substantive law. Soft skills, integrity questions and emerging and global issues were sufficiently tested. Thirdly, and perhaps most critical is the fact that the JSC engaged with their main challenge, in my view, the criticism that the Commission protects bad apples in the Judiciary. The question of how to harmonise incompetence as a ground of removal of a judge without tinkering with judicial independence of a judge. The courage to raise such pertinent issues on a national platform reflects a genuine desire for reforms by JSC.

As I pen off, this is a reminder that when we cannot see any success from the judiciary, take some time and engage with our peers’ judiciaries. Forward ye judiciary!