The legal battle over judicial oversight has taken a new turn following a court decision that has temporarily restored the powers of the Judicial Service Commission to investigate the conduct of judges. Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi and lawyer Philip Murgor secured a stay of a High Court judgment that had stopped such investigations, a move that has reopened a sensitive national conversation on accountability within the judiciary.
The stayed judgment had drawn sharp criticism from legal experts and members of the public who felt it went too far by limiting the role of the JSC. Many argued that the ruling did not merely interpret the law but effectively blocked the constitutional body from carrying out its core duties. By granting the stay, the court has paused the effects of that decision and allowed the existing oversight framework to continue operating as intended, at least for now.
In their arguments, Ahmednasir and Murgor maintained that the original judgment conflicted with the Constitution. They pointed to Article 172, which clearly gives the JSC the authority to receive complaints against judicial officers, investigate them, and make recommendations where necessary.
According to their submissions, any ruling that removes or weakens this mandate undermines the Constitution and threatens the balance between judicial independence and accountability.
The stay has been welcomed by those who believe that no public official should be beyond scrutiny. Supporters argue that while judges must be protected from interference in their decision-making, this protection should not turn into immunity from investigation.
They stress that independence is meant to safeguard fairness in courts, not to shield misconduct where serious and credible complaints exist.
This debate has also brought renewed attention to Lady Justice Dorah Chepkwony, whose name has appeared in discussions surrounding the issue of accountability. Legal commentators supporting the stay insist that allegations against any judge should be handled through the JSC process.
They argue that court orders that stop investigations before they begin deny the public a lawful and transparent way of addressing concerns about judicial conduct.
According to this view, the JSC offers a structured and fair process that respects due process while protecting the integrity of the judiciary. Where confidence in a judge’s ability to remain impartial has been severely affected, resignation is seen as a personal choice rather than a forced outcome, but one that remains open under the law.
Beyond individual cases, the dispute has exposed tensions within the judiciary itself. There have been claims that a small group of judges has used their influence to protect colleagues from scrutiny. While the judiciary has consistently denied such accusations and emphasized its commitment to the rule of law, the controversy has raised questions about how internal checks are applied in practice.
The granting of the stay has shifted the focus back to how judicial oversight should work within constitutional limits. It has reinforced the idea that accountability mechanisms are not an attack on the judiciary but a necessary part of maintaining public trust.
