Pattni case judge to face tribunal

What you need to know:

  • Judges Erastus Githinji, Roselyn Nambuye, Wanjiru Karanja, John Mwera and William Ouko further gave President Uhuru Kenyatta the leeway to reconstitute the tribunal he had initially appointed to investigate the conduct of Justice Mutava when he was suspended in May 2013.
  • They dismissed the judge’s contention that the tribunal was appointed after the expiry of two weeks and not constituted in accordance with the Constitution, saying the President had no time limit in appointing members of a tribunal.
  • On allegations that the JSC did not accord Justice Mutava a fair hearing, the judges ruled that the procedures leading to his suspension were properly carried out and that nothing prohibited the commission from recommending his suspension.

A judge who cleared businessman Kamlesh Pattni of the multi-billion-shilling Goldenberg scandal will now face a tribunal to investigate the way he handled the case.

A five-judge Bench of the Court of Appeal ruled that Justice Joseph Mutava was procedurally suspended and should not have been allowed back to the Judiciary.

“The High Court made a mistake in reinstating the judge on grounds that he was not accorded a fair hearing. It was the discretion of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to decide which information to share with the judge before making a finding,” ruled the judges.

Judges Erastus Githinji, Roselyn Nambuye, Wanjiru Karanja, John Mwera and William Ouko further gave President Uhuru Kenyatta the leeway to reconstitute the tribunal he had initially appointed to investigate the conduct of Justice Mutava when he was suspended in May 2013.

They dismissed the judge’s contention that the tribunal was appointed after the expiry of two weeks and not constituted in accordance with the Constitution, saying the President had no time limit in appointing members of a tribunal.

“The 14-day time limit only applies to the suspension. The President has the freedom to appoint a tribunal after the expiry of those days, otherwise his power to exercise that function will be rendered useless,” ruled the judges.

On allegations that the JSC did not accord Justice Mutava a fair hearing, the judges ruled that the procedures leading to his suspension were properly carried out and that nothing prohibited the commission from recommending his suspension.

“The High Court made a mistake in saying the commission did not carry out a due process. The remedy is to set aside that judgment and allow the tribunal to carry out its work,” the judges ruled.