Want to collaborate or support access to justice?
Contact UsWant to collaborate or support access to justice?
Contact Us
Read this story on Esheria.
Introduction
Judicial review stands as a cornerstone of democratic governance, ensuring that administrative bodies and government entities adhere to the rule of law. It acts as a crucial safeguard for citizens, protecting their rights and interests by allowing courts to scrutinize public actions and intervene when decisions are illegal, unreasonable, or unfair. In the landmark case of Humphrey Makokha Nyongesa & Others v. Communications Authority of Kenya & 2 Others, the court defined judicial review as “the means by which the courts supervise the actions or decisions of administrative bodies or tribunals.” This supervision is vital to maintaining the rule of law, ensuring that decisions made by public authorities do not violate individual rights or exceed legal boundaries.
Prominent administrative law scholar PLO Lumumba emphasizes the protective nature of judicial review, arguing that it ensures that both the executive and legislative branches of government operate within their constitutional limits. The principle is further highlighted in the classic case of Mombasa Council v. Republic and Others, where the Court of Appeal clarified that judicial review focuses on the legality of the processes leading to administrative actions rather than the merit of the actions themselves. This distinction is crucial, as it ensures that courts do not overstep into policy decisions but rather concentrate on the adherence to legal procedures and fairness.
The place of JR in Kenya
Before Kenya’s 2010 Constitution, judicial review was predominantly governed by common law principles, primarily through Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules and sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act. This legal framework permitted judicial review only for challenges against government entities, requiring an aggrieved party to first seek discretionary leave from the court to initiate proceedings. This procedural requirement necessitated the establishment of a prima facie case, demonstrating that the administrative action in question was arbitrary, illegal, or irrational.
However, the 2010 Constitution fundamentally transformed the landscape of judicial review in Kenya. Article 22 grants every individual the right to initiate legal proceedings if their fundamental rights or freedoms have been violated, denied, or threatened. This marks a significant departure from the pre-2010 era, where only government actions could be challenged. In addition, Article 47 guarantees the right to prompt, lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair administrative action. It obliges administrative bodies to provide written reasons when their actions infringe on fundamental rights. This constitutional guarantee was further reinforced by the Fair Administrative Actions Act of 2015, which operationalizes Article 47 and strengthens the protection of citizens in administrative matters.
The 2010 Constitution thus enhanced both the accessibility and the scope of judicial review. Citizens can now challenge not just government entities but also private bodies performing public functions, broadening the reach of judicial supervision. Additionally, the Fair Administrative Actions Act ensures that individuals receive adequate reasons for decisions that affect their rights, promoting transparency and accountability in public administration.
What roles does the Court play in impeachment?
An essential component of the judiciary’s supervisory role is its authority in impeachment proceedings, which requires a nuanced understanding of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide on matters as defined by law, a principle underscored in the seminal case of Owners of Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd., where the late Justice Nyarangi stated that "jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step."
In Kenya, the High Court derives its jurisdiction from constitutional provisions, particularly Articles 23(3) and 165(3), (6), and (7). These articles empower the High Court to protect fundamental rights and freedoms, as well as to exercise supervisory authority over any person, body, or authority performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Importantly, Article 25(8) allows individuals to initiate proceedings if they believe the Constitution has been violated or is at risk of violation, providing an avenue for addressing abuses of constitutional power.
However, the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction does not extend to superior courts, as clarified in Article 165(6), which prevents the court from intervening in matters before superior courts. Nevertheless, the High Court retains the power to request records of any proceedings before any body or authority and issue orders or directives to ensure justice is upheld. This supervisory jurisdiction becomes crucial in impeachment proceedings, as bodies such as the National Assembly and Senate perform quasi-judicial functions, making their decisions subject to judicial review.
While the judiciary plays a role in overseeing the procedural fairness of impeachment processes, Kenyan courts recognize their limitations. This principle is rooted in the landmark U.S. case Marbury v. Madison, where Chief Justice John Marshall asserted that certain political powers, such as impeachment, lie beyond judicial interference. Similarly, in Nixon v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that controversies involving political questions are non-justiciable, especially when the Constitution assigns them to political departments.
The tension between JR and impeachment
Impeachment is inherently a political process, and this characterization complicates the judiciary’s role. The political question doctrine often limits judicial intervention in impeachment cases, as courts tend to defer to the legislative branch when the issue is considered a political matter. This creates tension between the judiciary's role as a guardian of constitutional rights and the political nature of impeachment, which is seen as a process best managed by elected representatives.
However, the risk of politicization in impeachment proceedings necessitates some level of judicial oversight. Without judicial review, there is a potential for abuse of the impeachment process, with decisions driven by partisan interests rather than constitutional standards. Courts, therefore, play a crucial role in ensuring that the process is not only procedurally fair but also respects the rule of law. Judicial oversight does not mean that courts should interfere with the political merits of impeachment but rather that they ensure the process adheres to constitutional requirements.
As seen in the unfolding Gachagua case, the judiciary may be called upon to clarify the limits of its jurisdiction regarding impeachment. If the courts decide to intervene, they will likely focus on procedural fairness, ensuring that the National Assembly and Senate adhered to constitutional standards throughout the process. This includes examining whether the grounds for impeachment were adequately established and whether the accused was given a fair opportunity to present a defense.
Why Judicial oversight?
Judicial oversight in impeachment serves several critical functions. First, it acts as a check on legislative power, preventing potential abuses that could arise from politically motivated actions. This is essential for maintaining public confidence in the democratic process and upholding principles of fairness and justice. In a political climate where impeachment can be used as a tool for settling political scores, judicial oversight ensures that the process remains grounded in law rather than political expediency.
Second, judicial review provides a mechanism for accountability, ensuring that both the legislative and executive branches do not operate beyond their constitutional limits. By intervening in impeachment cases, courts reinforce the importance of due process and the rule of law, which are fundamental to democratic governance. This accountability is especially important in safeguarding individual rights, as impeachment proceedings can have profound personal consequences for the individuals involved.
Moreover, judicial involvement can help demystify the impeachment process. By providing legal clarity on the standards that govern impeachment, the courts can foster greater public understanding and trust in democratic institutions. Transparency in how impeachment decisions are made and reviewed is crucial for ensuring that the process is perceived as legitimate and just.
Conclusion
As the judicial review landscape in Kenya continues to evolve, courts must navigate the delicate balance between political questions and judicial oversight. Legislative reforms may be necessary to clarify the processes surrounding impeachment, ensuring that they are transparent, fair, and grounded in constitutional principles. Such reforms could help establish clearer guidelines for when and how judicial review can be applied to impeachment cases, preventing the misuse of the process as a political tool.
Additionally, fostering a culture of accountability and respect for the rule of law requires ongoing dialogue between the judiciary, legislature, and civil society. Public engagement in discussions about the role of judicial review in impeachment is critical for strengthening democratic institutions and protecting the rights of citizens.
Judicial review occupies a sacred place in democratic governance, acting as a guardian of fairness, justice, and the rule of law. In the context of impeachment, the judiciary must tread carefully, balancing its supervisory role with respect for the political nature of the proceedings. While the political question doctrine may limit judicial intervention, courts have a responsibility to ensure that the impeachment process is conducted fairly and in accordance with constitutional principles.
As the Gachagua case unfolds, it offers an opportunity for the judiciary to redefine its role in impeachment proceedings, emphasizing fairness, transparency, and accountability. By doing so, the courts can contribute to the development of a robust democratic framework in Kenya, where the rights of individuals are protected, and the actions of government bodies are held to the highest standards of legality and reasonableness.
