Lead image for Justice begins at home: Strengthen Judiciary's Sexual Harassment Policy.
“Stop sexual harassment. Respect boundaries. Uphold dignity”. These are the statements that hit you on opening the Standard Operating Procedures for Sexual Harassment Policy (Sops) approved on December 23, 2025.
This document seeks to translate into action the Judicial Service Commission Sexual Harassment Policy for the Judiciary, 2021, which declares the behaviour intolerable because it is criminal and breaches the Constitution and various statutes. The policy is anchored on zero tolerance, awareness creation, reporting, standards of conduct and a conflict resolution procedure.
While the policy is a step in the right direction, its content should be revised to align with current reality. For instance, it states that sexual harassment “may occur between persons of the opposite or same sex”. This phrasing assumes that there are only two sexes, yet Kenya has acknowledged intersex persons as another biological category, hence the text should be revised to “same or other sex”.
Read: Why Kenya’s workplace sexual harassment laws are failing employees
The requirement by the policy that complaints “shall be in writing using the prescribed form” is a legacy procedure, which assigns more premium to literacy over other means of reporting and recording, making it essentially exclusionary. But in other parts, this is remedied by allowing verbal and in-person reports. Curiously, the policy gives only the complainant the option of asking for the matter to be resolved informally, while Sops provide for the perpetrator as well to initiate such an action. These instances suggest the need to harmonise the two documents.
Part 6.5(f) of the policy states that “when it has been determined that sexual harassment has occurred, steps must be taken to ensure that the harassment has been stopped immediately.” This technically means that the harassment can go on between the time it is reported and conclusion of investigations, exposing the alleged victim to further harm. The desired immediacy can be achieved by notifying the alleged perpetrator of the accusation as soon as it is received and specifying the need to cease any form of contact with the complainant henceforth.
Part 10.5 of the policy is a weak provision. It states that “sanctions may be imposed” on people who make false accusations. The word “may” suggests that imposition of sanctions will be discretionary, which is fine. But that requires a listing of the grounds on which the same can be exercised. Not doing so portends for injustice to the falsely accused person and displays some intrinsic reluctance on the matter.
Read: Power, robes and quiet corridors: Sexual harassment claims force Kenya’s lawyers into a reckoning