OPINION
While it happened months ago and many may have forgotten, Kenya’s Lady Chief Justice Martha Koome’s harsh choice of words on the bench, warrants more examination to gauge their wisdom or necessity in the Court’s role in administering justice.
Unfortunately, civility is hard to codify or legislate, but you know it when you see it. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. These were invaluable remarks from former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
Her words set a standard to illustrate a difference of opinion did not mean hostility or superiority of one’s perspective.
The words also evoke fond memories of King Solomon’s words – branded the wisest man ever to walk the streets of justice – who reminded us that “A word aptly spoken is like apples of gold in settings of silver” – Proverbs 25:11.
Hot air, nonsense, a worthless pursuit, a lost cause, fools’ errand, and a wild goose chase are phrases that Koome used in characterizing her disagreement with Azimio’s court argument. But if those words are juxtaposed against O’Conner’s wise words, one must agree that personality traits are much more valuable than acquired knowledge.
Justice O’Connor wanted legal scholars, especially those tasked with interpreting laws in courts of law, to be able to disagree with a matter before them but still desist from showing revulsion to any of the litigants, however much they (judges) hated any of them.
While at that, she went ahead to remind the public that “The freedom to criticize judges and other public officials is necessary to a vibrant democracy and that the problem comes when healthy criticism is replaced with more destructive intimidation and sanction.
The two phrases form a tapestry within which her words are hemmed through the silhouette of Prov. 25:11 reminding Kenya’s Lady Chief Justice Martha Koome that Kenyans were free to vent on the language and tone of judgment so long as the criticisms were devoid of sanction.
Justice O’Conner seemed to offer a thought for Koome that she was obliged to try modesty, if not civility, in addressing the court chambers. Legal scholars might be agreeable to the verdict on the 2022 presidential petition but still call out our good Lady CJ on the manner of language.
Hot air, nonsense, a worthless pursuit, a lost cause, fools’ errand, and a wild goose chase are phrases that Koome used in characterizing her disagreement with Azimio’s court argument. But if those words are juxtaposed against O’Conner’s wise words, one must agree that personality traits are much more valuable than acquired knowledge.
After reading the ruling, Koome told Kenyans four days later that God inspired her judgment. Granted, but does God hide behind invectives? If her aversions were true, God could not have charged us to “Let our conversation be always full of grace seasoned with salt, so that we may know how to answer everyone.” – Colossians 4:6. In such case, hers was not full of grace and seasoned with salt. Rather her triphthongs that echoed “erections” would only leave a novice in legal matters like me speculating whether she was leading the apex court in erecting judicial barriers instead of dismantling such.
The Office of Public Prosecution must have assessed the comportment of Koome and the weight of her sentiments and concluded that judgments would be dispensed through the corridors of power contrary to the halls of justice.
This must have necessitated the many economic crime cases to be withdrawn. In the public eye, we as citizens would want to badmouth the good DPP, but he is the one that is closer to the proximity of power.
He must have realized that he, who pays the piper, calls the tune to be listened to by the spectators who may not even be interested in the melody. The executive has been the payer, while the Office of Public Prosecution is the piper tuner. However, Judiciary should always remain steadfast in matters of justice for the societal good.
While at it, you may want to trace this quote “The greatness of a nation lies in its fidelity to the constitution, strict adherence to the rule of law, and above all, the fear of God.” CJ Maraga 2017.
Regardless of whatever side of the litigation you may have supported, you would agree that many legal researchers, even in the successive generations’ downtime, the world over, would be more inclined to study what compelled such a captivating phrase over invectives.