Attorney-General Kihara Kariuki has come out guns blazing against CJ David Maraga for issuing a public statement attacking President Uhuru Kenyatta and piling pressure on him over the appointment of 41 judges nominated by the JSC. Justice Maraga sensationally claimed that he has unsuccessfully sought an audience with President Kenyatta to discuss the appointment of the said judges.
The Constitution requires the President to appoint all the persons nominated by the JSC as judges. However, the President has declined to appoint the 41 nominees by the JSC following reports by the NIS concerning the integrity of some of the individuals. AG Kariuki has told off Maraga in a sensational press statement and reiterated that the President is not a mere rubber-stamp for whatever recommendation made by the Judicial Service Commission.
A detailed statement of facts issued in the public interest by the office of the Hon. Attorney General Rtd Justice Paul Kihara Kariuki pursuant to the matters raised by Hon. Chief Justice @dkmaraga pic.twitter.com/QKOF5GaMeD
ā Nzioka Waita (@NziokaWaita) June 9, 2020
The Judiciary is currently grappling with a backlog of more than 20,000 cases, and Maraga who is set to retire in January 2021, has blamed the President’s refusal to appoint the 41 for the backlog. The press statement by the CJ is a depiction of the deep-seated tussle between the Executive and the Judiciary. Last year, Justice Maraga issued another public statement complaining of mistreatment by the Executive and the deliberate failure to release funds to ensure that the courts run efficiently. In a separate incident, the Justice Maraga also issued a statement countering an Executive Order by the President aimed at streamlining the functions of the Office of the President.
STATEMENT ON EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 1 OF 2020 pic.twitter.com/SvBib1B1d1
ā David Maraga (@dkmaraga) June 4, 2020
More Stories
Intrigues behind the John Keen property tussle
Salt prices up as cost of living soar in Kenya
Eyes on Political Parties Tribunal as Jubilee appeal case ruling looms