Building a Judiciary worthy of public confidence

On September 1, 2017, the Supreme Court of Kenya delivered a decision that reverberated far beyond the courtroom. In nullifying the presidential election, the Court asserted that public power is subject to the Constitution. For the Judiciary, it was a defining test of independence, courage and legitimacy.

As the country looks towards the 2027 General Election, that moment assumes renewed significance. The question is no longer whether the Judiciary can rise to the occasion, but if it has sustained the public confidence that such moments demand, especially in a climate of heightened civic awareness and growing protests over economic governance and fiscal policies.

The Judiciary occupies a unique place in Kenya's constitutional architecture. Its authority rests neither on force nor political power, but on the confidence of the people that justice will be administered fairly.

Public confidence is not secured by singular acts of bravery. It is cultivated through the experiences of those who come before courts. As Kenya navigates economic pressures and scrutiny of state action, the Judiciary must reflect on the principles that sustain its legitimacy.

Its strength lies on three pillars – public trust, experience of court users and the delicate balance of judicial courage and restraint.

Judicial authority must be anchored in integrity and transparency. Courts command obedience because their decisions are accepted as legitimate expressions of the law. Their legitimacy is earned through demonstrable independence, impartiality and fidelity to legal principles. The 2017 decision demonstrated that courts can act decisively in defence of constitutional order.

Yet such authority cannot rest on momentary victories. It must be reinforced through consistency in decision-making, clarity in reasoning and the absence of improper influence. Confidence erodes where there is a perception that justice favours the wealthy, the politically connected or those able to manipulate court processes.

Delay, inconsistency, corruption or inefficiency can undermine public confidence. Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done through transparent processes that inspire confidence among litigants and the public.