Sunday Nation on the Web

Wearing their bright red flowing robes and sheepskin wigs, Kenyan judges cut a bizarre image. They are dressed to resemble their counterparts in Britain who, in turn, take their cue from the fashions of the 17th century, or thereabouts, when it was fashionable for men to wear wigs. In a number of other countries, like the United States, judges dress in modern fashions and look less comical.

But looking bizarre does not necessarily lead to strange or, one might say, eccentric behaviour. It certainly should not be linked to the twin evils of corruption and abuse of office and, in most cases, there has been no such link. But it has been found that some of the judges and magistrates alleged to be corrupt and to have thoroughly abused their offices in the past also seem to have been among the most bizarre and eccentric characters in the public eye.

The Bench's "List of Shame," as many are now referring to Justice Aaron Ringera's report on judicial corruption, lifts the lid on some of the weirdest individuals ever to don a wig and a red robe in Kenya.

The accusations against the judges range from accepting bribes of more than Sh15 million to sexual harassment, to the exhibition of behaviour weirder than Charles Dickens could have depicted in Bleak House.

Bleak House, Dickens' ninth novel, was intended to illustrate the evils caused by long, drawn-out suits in the Courts of Chancery. Dickens had observed the inner workings of the courts as a reporter in his youth and observed that "the one great principle of the English law is to make business for itself''.

The memorable story features the fictional long-running case of John Jarndyce and his being heard in the High Court of Chancery. In the book, John, owner of Bleak House, has little hope of gaining anything from it. Meanwhile, on her aunt's death, Esther Summerson is adopted by Jarndyce and becomes companion to his wards, Ada Clare and Richard Carstone. Carstone has hopes that the Chancery case will make his fortune.

As the story unfolds, it is revealed that Esther is the illegitimate daughter of Captain Hawdon and Lady Dedlock. When the Dedlock's lawyer, Tulkinghorn, learns of this, and tries to profit by the information, he is murdered by Lady Dedlock's former maid. Lady Dedlock flees and later dies at the gates of the cemetery where Hawdon lies buried.

In the meantime, John Jarndyce has fallen in love with Esther and asked her to marry him. She consents out of respect for Jarndyce but, during the engagement, she falls in love with Allan Woodcourt. When Jarndyce learns of her feelings, he releases her from the engagement and she marries Woodcourt. The Chancery case comes to a close with court costs eating up all the estate. Carstone, who has married Ada, dies in despair.

According to the Ringera report, a copy of which the Sunday Nation got, some of the judges and magistrates were so well known by the public for their corruption that they acquired nicknames such as "the Toll Station", "the Blemish" and "the Cashbox".

The accusations likely to be brought against the judges are said to range from sexual harassment to demanding and getting multi-million-shilling bribes. The allegations arise from complaints received by the Ringera committee and contained in a two-part report presented to the chief justice. While the first report was released to the media, the second report, the one that actually named names, was only released on Wednesday last week.

In one instance, a judge demanded a Sh3 million bribe to dismiss a civil application. He began hearing the case by advising the respondents to change their advocates because he "did not wish to deal with the firm then representing them" and asked for the bribe to dismiss the application.

The respondents agreed to pay and handed over the money in two instalments Ð the first in the basement parking of the Hilton Hotel shortly after midnight on November 28, 2000, while the second instalment of Sh1 million was collected by the judge from the reception of the same hotel two days later. The judge dismissed the application.

In another instance, another judge committed two offences of corruption and gross misbehaviour by having a close personal relationship with counsel appearing before him who was also a director and acting chairman of the respondent's company.

In yet another case involving the same judge, it is reported the judge helped the same counsel draft pleadings, including an affidavit of a case he was hearing. In fact, one paragraph of the affidavit was in his own handwriting!

It is claimed that the judge was to be paid a fee for the advice he gave in a case he was hearing.

Yet another judge is likely to answer charges of lack of integrity, unethical conduct and judicial misbehaviour.

The judge reportedly presided over an appeal in spite of having previously been disqualified from hearing the case because of his intimate relationship with the appellant for whom he was the legal consultant.

The appellant won the case and was given damages in excess of Sh100 million.

The same judge, it is alleged, was the conduit through which bribes from a prominent Kenyan were delivered to other judges – four in the Court of Appeal and two in the High Court.

The same judge is also reported to have received a hefty bribe – Sh15 million – from a businessman to influence fellow judges in a case they were hearing. However, he was unable to do so and decided to repay the bribe and was still doing so in instalments.

Another judge is reported to have handled Goldenberg-related cases during recess yet he was not the duty judge.

It is alleged that he not only visited the business premises at night while handling the Goldenberg case, but also wrote his ruling at night and faxed it to the lawyer representing an investor involved in the case. It is claimed the judge received Sh6 million for his troubles.

In yet another instance, the same judge reportedly made a threatening phone call to the clerk of the Narok County Council after the civic authority entered a consent with the plaintiff and also grabbed 76 acres belonging to a school in the Nkorrkorri area of Narok District.

He reportedly delayed judgment for five-and-a-half years, having concluded hearing a dispute in December 1997 and setting judgment day for April 2003.

It is claimed that one judge had close relations with the late drug baron Ibrahim Akasha and his family. The judge was seen visiting the Akashas at home while criminal cases against them were pending before him.

Among the High Court judges, one of them is alleged to have been caught red-handed in his chambers holding a bundle of notes he had just received from a rival party in a civil case. When his impartiality was questioned, he refused to disqualify himself and even threatened to jail his accuser.

The judge, nicknamed Cashbox, is reported to have asked the defendant to give him Sh60,000 and a bag of millet so that he could rule in his favour. When the defendant refused to pay the bribe, the judge approached the opposing party who gave him Sh60,000.

The sobriquet "Cashbox" was earned during a case he is reported to have stage-managed. The case involved a disputed piece of land which the judge was reported to be eyeing. He somehow managed to buy the land in question and have it registered in his name while the dispute was still being heard.

The story is told, for instance, of a magistrate who, while hearing a divorce case, took a fancy to the man in the case and, having made her feelings quite clear on the matter, rushed through the case and allegedly began living with the man even before the process was complete!

Another magistrate forced public service commuter mini-buses to fuel only at his petrol station and threatened those who defied that their vehicles would be impounded.

Another magistrate is known to cite people for contempt if they forgot to bow to his court and to acknowledge his presence. The usual punishment for such forgetfulness on the part of the offending person is a brief stint in jail or, if the magistrate is feeling lenient, a fine. Obviously obsessed with having people bow before him, this magistrate once committed a police corporal to jail for not lowering his head as a mark of respect when they met at a grocer's.

The same magistrate is reported to have demanded Sh20,000 from a suspect to get him off the charge sheet. The suspect, unusually for a Kenyan, was aware of his legal rights. He refused to pay the bribe and immediately wrote to the Attorney-General with a request that the case be referred to a different magistrate.

When the magistrate found out what the suspect had done, he decided to humiliate him by having him frogmarched around the courts and then assaulted him in front of a group of police officers.

Another rapacious magistrate would visit the homes of suspects and complainants to assess their material worth before deciding on the amount of money he would extort from them while deciding their cases.

The infamous magistrate, known simply by everyone as the "Toll Station," was so named for once having transferred the operations of the traffic court to his house where he is alleged to have received bribes from motorists to let them off.

The same magistrate is also infamous for visiting restaurants and cafes, ordering food and drinks and then, when presented with the bill, pointing out a seemingly innocent customer and ordering that they pay. Woe betide any who did not. It was possible they could find themselves brought before him on trumped-up charges. Few, if any, ever refused to pay for the magistrate's food and beverage.

This magistrate, who was quite obviously notorious and acting with impunity, was also known to conduct impromptu fund-raisers at which all traders in the vicinity were forced to make "donations" of Sh2,000 each.

He was reported to have received a Sh3,000 bribe to release a person who had been committed to civil jail by another court.

The magistrate was also reported to often share a beer with court clerks and secretaries while loudly discussing court matters at a bar or other social place.

Another judge was said to be putting up a building. He would reportedly have litigants organised to buy and transport materials to the site and, depending on how much they brought, they would have their matters decided for them speedily and in their favour. The other way to get ahead in his court was to hire a certain lawyer, who just happened to be the judge's relative and who always won the cases he argued in his court.

This crafty fellow is said to have once conducted a fund-raiser for his wife during which litigants were invited to contribute "generously".

Another story is told of how the same judge stayed at a hotel and ran up a bill of Sh56,000 which he refused to pay. When the management sued, he threatened the process server who, apparently, also doubled as an assessor in his court, with a fine of Sh1,000 or six months in prison.

Bizarre and darkly amusing as the antics of the judges and magistrates described might be, it must not be forgotten that Kenyans take the issue seriously.

Therapists will advise their couch bound patients that admitting the problem exists is the first step to sorting it out. In the case of the Kenyan Judiciary, for years it was visible to the public and others on the outside looking in, that the whole system was rotten to the core.

For whatever reason few, if any in the Judiciary, were ready to admit that there were any problems and so nothing was done about anything.

However, about two years ago, the stench on the bench had begun to assault the nostrils of a few conscientious judges and magistrates, for whom turning a blind eye to corruption was no longer an option.

In July 2001, after a very public bust up between three Justices of the Appeal Court during which one of them, Mr Richard Otieno Kwach, questioned the integrity of two of his colleagues, A.B. Shah and P. Tunoi, the then newspaper columnist, now official Kenyan anti-graft czar, Mr John Githongo, wrote: "The process of judicial reform in Kenya began some time ago. Indeed, the most talked-about report on this subject was actually authored by one of the judges involved in the latest flare-up. The Report of the Committee on the Administration of Justice, dubbed the Kwach Report, spoke of lengthy case delays, limited access by the population, lax security, inadequate accommodation, corrupt practices, cumbersome procedures, questionable recruitment and promotional procedures and general lack of training, weak or non-existent sanctions for unethical behaviour and inequitable budgets.

"The Judiciary, it said, was able to meet the expectations of the private sector and the public only to a limited extent. The Judiciary is the station of final recourse for wananchi (citizens). A weak or pliable Judiciary undermines the rule of law in the most fundamental way."

With the Kwach Report, someone from the inside seemed finally to be admitting that there was a problem. Later, in March last year, there was the then highly controversial visit by a group of legal experts from the Commonwealth. At the end of their visit, these jurors called for a drastic shake-up of the Judiciary.

The Commonwealth group urged a "short, sharp shock" to rid the Judiciary of sleaze. Their most drastic recommendation was that a new constitution requires that all judges be asked to resign to pave the way for a clean slate. This call was later taken up by sections of the Constitution of Kenya Review Committee who had actually hosted the Commonwealth jurors.

The then Chief Justice, Mr Bernard Chunga, on hearing the recommendations of the experts, furiously retorted: "Experts for what, on what, about what?" It remains one of his best-remembered quotes.

At the time, Mr Chunga, who was himself hounded out of office early this year after a tribunal was set up to investigate allegations against him, accused the team of "acting on rumours and cheap gossip."

Led by Mr Justice George Kanyeihamba of the Uganda Supreme Court, the Commonwealth team comprised Mr Justice Damian Lubuva of the Tanzania Appeal Court, Lady Justice Yvonne Mokgoro of the South Africa Constitutional Court, Mr Justice Robert Sharpe of the Ontario Appeal Court, Canada, and Prof Ed Ratushny of the University of Ottawa, Canada.

In their 64-page report, they said: "The air is full of allegations of corruption, incompetence and inefficiency. If the Judiciary is to carry out its function in an acceptable manner, the air must be cleared."

The former CJ claimed that the Commonwealth report had tried to undermine the Judiciary. He added: "A visitor cannot come here, stay at a lavish five-star hotel and tell me that my judicial system is at a cross-roads after only two days of entertainment."

When presenting his report to the current Chief Justice, Mr Evan Gicheru, Justice Ringera was colourful in his description of the corruption dragon that has eaten into the judicial community and warned: "It is bound to snort, kick and jump and even attack, for corruption always fights back."

He made a point of not just stating the facts as he had found them to be, but also of warning the parties that appointed him that only half the work had been done.

As the Ringera Report noted, court registries are a haven of corrupt court officials. Lawyers have contributed to turning them into dens of thieves. Inflation of court filing fees is rampant and this usually happens through collusion between advocates and registry clerks. Shadows of Charles Dickens' Jarndyce and Jarndyce again?

One of them was allegedly caught red-handed in his chambers holding a bundle of notes he'd just received

Comments\Views about this article