Kenya's judiciary must ensure rulings are understood

It’s imperative for Kenya’s judiciary to take charge of its own narrative, writes Ndong Evance in Standard Media. Evance says court decisions can be lost in the noise of distortion and it becomes more baffling when senior legal practitioners, no less, misrepresent court decisions with the reckless abandon of a jester donning a judge’s robe. ‘In the current murky waters of misinformation, where half-truths float alongside outright fabrications, even the purest streams can be muddied. The recent decision in the Ferdinand Waititu (former Kiambu governor) corruption case is a sobering reminder that while justice may be blind, the public is not and neither is social media. When such happen, the very institution meant to be the bastion of truth risks erosion. In such times, it becomes not just advisable but imperative for the judiciary to take charge of its own narrative.’ Evance notes that in South Africa, court case summaries are routine. ‘They dispel myths before they take root, rendering rumour-mongering an exercise in futility. Kenya, on the other hand, has been slower to embrace this necessity. The Supreme Court has consistently embraced media summaries of its decisions; the other courts must embrace this in major decisions of public interest. Evance points out that the Waititu decision, which saw social media awash with misleading claims regarding the fine imposed upon conviction and the total sum of corruption involved, is a case in point. (He was ordered to pay a Sh53.5m (about $42 000) fine or spend 12 years in prison after being found guilty of corruption-related charges). ‘Numbers were thrown around like dice in a game of deception. Some claimed that the fine was but a drop in the ocean compared to the stolen millions, implying a judiciary in bed with the corrupt.'

'Others boldly declared that courts had legalised theft as long as one could afford a slap-on-the-wrist penalty. These narratives were laced with irony yet lacking truth. They spread like wildfire, leaving the judiciary to douse flames it did not ignite. It is not the role of the courts to engage in public relations battles, but in an era where the tongue is no longer mightier than the sword, the judiciary must step up.’ Evance states it’s more essential now given that the misinformation in the Waititu case was peddled even by legal practitioners who ought to know better. ‘In a modern world where perception often trumps reality, the judiciary must understand that failing to clarify is, in itself, a form of miscommunication. A nation’s trust in its judicial system is not written in stone. It is written in actions, reinforced by clarity.' Evance says in the Standard Media analysis that a judiciary that fails to explain itself risks being explained by others, often to its detriment. 'If the courts wish to be the final word on justice, they must ensure that their word is heard, understood, and not twisted beyond recognition. The misreporting of the Waititu case did not arise from ignorance alone. It was in some instances, deliberate, an attempt to paint the judiciary as corrupt and complicit.' Evance concludes that the antidote to such manipulation is not retreat, but engagement. ‘This duty, for the judiciary to always communicate effectively and promptly, is more important since the public deserve the right to know under Article 35. This right extends to simple breakdown of major decisions that affect the public. In South Africa, court summaries are provided swiftly after major cases, ensuring that before the rumour mill can grind its poison, the truth is already in circulation. Kenya must follow suit. Justice is not only about court decisions; it is about understanding. What good is a well-reasoned decision if the people it affects most are left confused or misled?’

Full report on the Standard Media site