The High Court on Tuesday barred the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) from presenting its arguments on whether cases filed by Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu and Justice Mohammed Ibrahim should be stayed.
JSC’s lawyer, Issa Mansur, stated that he would argue the commission’s case based on existing legal judgments. Senior counsel Paul Nyamodi, representing Dari Limited and former Rarieda MP Raphael Tuju—who are advocating for an overhaul of the Supreme Court—supported Mansur’s position, emphasizing that JSC, as a key party, should be allowed to present its case.
However, Justice Bahati Mwamuye ruled that any party that failed to file submissions as per the court’s directive would not be permitted to make oral arguments.
“Any party that has not filed written submissions or skeleton arguments shall not be permitted to highlight as they have nothing to highlight. However, any list and bundles of authorities will be considered,” the judge ruled.
Meanwhile, lawyer Nelson Havi criticized the court’s decision to halt a constitutional process, citing a previous High Court ruling by Justices Eric Ogola, Freda Mugambi, and Anthony Mrima that allowed Parliament to complete the impeachment process of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua.
Havi argued that since no decision had been made to send the judges’ files to the President for tribunal formation, the court should exercise restraint. He also petitioned for the removal of all seven Supreme Court judges, claiming that such removals have taken place under similar circumstances over the past decade.
Additionally, Havi questioned Chief Justice Martha Koome’s role in appointing a bench, arguing that she could either select a biased panel or refuse to empanel one, thereby stalling the cases indefinitely.
“The removal of judges has been undertaken under this constitution for the last 10 years. We urge the court to strike out the petitions and not certify them as raising novel issues,” Havi argued.
Nyamodi, in support of Havi’s position, pointed out that Justice Mwilu had already filed a preliminary objection before the JSC, which he claimed made it improper for the court to intervene in an independent commission’s process. However, he disagreed with Havi regarding the Chief Justice’s power to empanel a bench, stating that if the issues were deemed weighty, the court should certify the case for such an appointment.
