Nairobi: The Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association (KMJA) has urged the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) to reconsider its proposed nationwide and targeted boycott of court proceedings, warning that the move would primarily hurt litigants and undermine access to justice.
According to Kenya News Agency, the KMJA emphasized its commitment to judicial independence, accountability, and the constitutional right of every Kenyan to access justice in a press statement signed by its President, Justice Peter Mulwa. The statement acknowledged the concerns raised by the LSK over delays, registry inefficiencies, case management, and judicial accountability. Justice Mulwa noted that the Judiciary has recognized these challenges and is implementing reforms to improve efficiency, transparency, and public confidence in the courts.
Justice Mulwa further stressed that a boycott would worsen case backlogs and delay justice for court users. He called for sustainable solutions through collaboration between the bench, the bar, and other justice sector institutions instead of the suspension of court proceedings.
Three days ago, the LSK announced a nationwide boycott of court services to protest what it termed as persistent failures in the administration of justice and to push for institutional reforms. LSK President, Charles Kanjama, stated the one-day boycott will require advocates to refrain from participating in all court hearings and applications. Kanjama clarified that the boycott will not affect the filing of cases.
The KMJA expressed concern over the LSK’s targeted boycott of specific judicial officers, noting that some of those named, including Supreme Court judges, have matters pending before courts. Justice Mulwa added that directing advocates not to appear before judges exercising their constitutional right to seek legal redress could be perceived as an attempt to influence ongoing court proceedings, which contradicts the principle of judicial independence under Article 160 of the Constitution.
On allegations of corruption and misconduct within the judiciary, Justice Mulwa reiterated a zero-tolerance stance, supporting prompt and impartial investigations of credible complaints. He urged the LSK to channel evidence-backed allegations through the Judicial Service Commission and the Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman instead of publicly naming judicial officers before due process is followed.
The Association acknowledged that case backlog remains a major concern but reported that the judiciary has introduced reforms, including active case management, digitization of court processes, automation of registries, expanded use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), and continuous performance monitoring to improve service delivery.
KMJA also supported transparency in judicial performance reporting but suggested that the publication of individual judges’ performance data should await the completion of the Judiciary’s Case Weighting Study and improvements in the Court Tracking System to ensure fair and accurate comparisons.
Calling for constructive engagement, the KMJA invited the LSK to urgent talks through the National Council on the Administration of Justice, Court Users Committees, or a dedicated Bench-Bar forum to address the issues raised. They urged advocates to continue representing their clients while discussions continue, emphasizing that the constitutional rights of litigants should not be compromised by actions that disrupt or delay court proceedings.
Justice Mulwa concluded that the Association remains committed to working with the LSK, the Judiciary, the Judicial Service Commission, and other stakeholders to strengthen judicial independence, improve court efficiency, and enhance public confidence in the administration of justice.
