NAIROBI, Kenya | The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has formally called for a fresh vetting of judges and magistrates to tackle ongoing allegations of corruption and misconduct within the judiciary. In a detailed memorandum, the LSK highlighted concerns about unethical practices, including bribery, delayed rulings, and case manipulation, which continue to undermine public trust in the judicial system.

The memorandum outlines the need for an independent and transparent process to evaluate the conduct of judicial officers. According to the LSK, this step is critical to addressing persistent challenges and ensuring the integrity of the judiciary. The proposed vetting would involve a thorough review of judges’ and magistrates’ financial records, case histories, and any past allegations of impropriety. Judicial officers found to have violated ethical standards would face disciplinary measures, including potential removal from office.

The LSK emphasized in the memorandum that the proposed vetting is not intended to be punitive but rather a necessary intervention to restore confidence in the judiciary. The document emphasizes that without decisive action, public trust in the justice system could continue to erode, jeopardizing the judiciary’s role as a cornerstone of the rule of law.

In its submission, the LSK called for collaboration with the Judiciary Service Commission (JSC) to ensure the process is impartial and credible. The society also proposed mechanisms to make the vetting process transparent, allowing it to serve as a tool for rebuilding trust while respecting the independence of the judiciary.

The memorandum has generated significant discussion among legal professionals and civil society groups. While many have supported the LSK’s initiative as timely and necessary, others have cautioned that such measures must be carefully implemented to avoid compromising judicial independence.

The Judiciary Service Commission has yet to issue a formal response to the LSK’s proposals. However, as public and professional scrutiny of the judiciary intensifies, stakeholders are keenly awaiting steps that will address the concerns raised and reinforce the judiciary’s commitment to justice and fairness.