By Kepher Otieno - Reporter
Kenya, 24 December 2025 - The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has expressed its concern over a recent High Court ruling in Constitutional Petition No. E110 of 2025, which addressed the Commission’s role in considering petitions against judges.
In a statement, JSC Chairperson Martha Koome highlighted the Commission’s constitutional mandate and signaled the intention to appeal the decision.
“The Judicial Service Commission is established under Article 171 of the Constitution and is expressly mandated under Article 172 to safeguard judicial independence while ensuring accountability within the judiciary,” Koome said.
She emphasised that Article 168 empowers the Commission to receive, consider, and, where the constitutional threshold is met, act upon petitions for the removal of judges of the superior courts.
This can be initiated either on the Commission’s own motion or through petitions filed by any person.
Koome described this responsibility as a “critical pillar of Kenya’s constitutional architecture for judicial accountability.”
While the Commission acknowledged the authority, role, and decisional independence of the courts, Koome stated that it has “considered dissatisfaction” with parts of the High Court judgment.
She explained that, in the Commission’s view, the ruling imposes limitations that could hinder the JSC’s ability to effectively carry out its constitutional duties under Article 168.
Despite these concerns, Koome assured the public and stakeholders that the Commission remains committed to performing its responsibilities with independence, institutional integrity, and fidelity to the Constitution.
“We remain dedicated to upholding the principles of the rule of law and ensuring that judicial accountability mechanisms function as intended,” she said.
In line with this commitment, the JSC has filed an appeal against the High Court decision.
More from Kenya
According to Koome, the appeal aims to seek clarity and guidance on the proper interpretation and application of Article 168, particularly regarding the Commission’s role in considering and acting upon petitions against judges.
“This step is taken in the public interest and to ensure that the constitutional mandate of the Commission is preserved,” she added.
Legal analysts observe that the JSC’s move reflects the ongoing challenge of balancing judicial independence with accountability.
The appeal is significant because it will clarify the boundaries of the Commission’s oversight powers, potentially setting a precedent for how judicial petitions are managed in the future.
It also underscores the tension between ensuring that judges are answerable to constitutional standards while maintaining the independence of the judiciary.
Koome reaffirmed that the JSC will continue to respect court decisions and use all lawful avenues to challenge rulings it considers limiting to its mandate.
She described the Commission as a “facilitator and promoter of judicial accountability, protector of judicial independence, and a steadfast champion of the rule of law in Kenya.”
The case is being closely watched by legal experts, civil society, and the public, as it has wide-ranging implications for the governance of the judiciary.
The outcome of the appeal could define how the JSC balances its constitutional role with the autonomy of the courts, shaping the future of judicial accountability in Kenya.
JSC Moves to Challenge High Court Ruling on Judicial Oversight
JSC to Challenge Decision on Judge Removal Role
