Kenya’s CJ must take radical action to end corruption

The Kenyan judiciary has been tainted by corruption for decades, writes Gedion Onyango in an analysis in The Conversation. Onyango's comments come after an announcement that the judiciary will now partner with the national Anti-Corruption Commission and the National Intelligence Service to identify patterns, hotspots and individuals for early intervention. Onyango, who researches public accountability, anti-corruption and whistleblowing reforms, said that more than half of Kenyans surveyed in 2024 believed some judges and magistrates were corrupt; while 22.9% believed most were corrupt. ‘In another national survey 10 years earlier, 35% of Kenyans regarded the judiciary as highly corrupt. The apparent improvement in public perceptions (from 35% to 22%) may stem from anti-corruption efforts in Kenyan courts. The positive changes could also result from robust judicial leadership in recent years. Most recently, there have been calls for the Chief Justice to resign for failing to act against corrupt judges and magistrates.’ Onyango says the judicial anti-corruption initiative isn’t entirely new. ’It represents a will to implement the existing policy and laws that have evolved from previous initiatives. Anti-corruption policies in Kenya have shifted to multi-agency frameworks. This strategy acknowledges the intertwined nature of corruption. The approach has to be cohesive, unified and well co-ordinated, in the public and private sectors. Kenya’s lead anti-corruption agency is the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission. Since 2015, the agency has sought to re-engineer the fight against corruption through collective action and partnerships with a range of public and private sector players. This strategy draws from lessons learned from failed approaches from the past.'

He notes that multi-agency initiatives offer several advantages in the fight against corruption. ‘First, they give those involved a sense of owning the policy and having responsibility. As a result, the responsibility for combating corruption is shared rather than resting solely with the national anti-corruption commission. This addresses a gap in the battle against corruption not just in Kenya but in other countries.’ According to Onyango, policy ownership ensures that anti-corruption measures are better integrated into the unique complexities and norms of each sector. ‘It enhances policy awareness among key actors, communication through diverse engagements, research through shared studies and assessments, stakeholder engagements, and training across sectors. Second, the multi-agency approach creates interdependence. Each participating institution contributes distinct expertise. This approach is clear in the new strategy, where the National Intelligence Service uses intelligence to identify areas susceptible to corruption in the judiciary.' Thirdly, he states in The Conversation, multi-agency initiatives are more likely to cultivate trust among diverse stakeholders. 'They engage and share responsibilities. Partners become familiar with each other’s strengths and challenges, as well as their own limitations.’ He notes that the potential obstacles to joint action may stem from lack of commitment, power play among actors, poor co-ordination and weak leadership. ‘Another critical factor is political interference. According to a 2023 survey, political elites have misused state power and resources. This has fostered a culture of corruption in public life. Another related obstacle is under-funding of anti-corruption agencies, the judiciary and other oversight institutions.'

This, he says, has a bearing on staff retention, and effective operations of the commission and other public institutions. 'Under these circumstances, it is no surprise that some institutions have been inhabited by individuals with questionable integrity. This suggests that some national anti-corruption institutions are ill-positioned to spearhead joint actions to tackle corruption.’ Onyango points out in The Conversation that the Kenyan judiciary requires more than just a multi-agency strategy to combat corruption within its ranks. ‘It has been a core member of the Kenya Leadership and Integrity Forum for years, but has yet to do some of the things that were required. The proposed court integrity committees do not differ much from the court performance committees outlined in the programme. The judiciary has been a partner in other multi-agency arrangements too. But the courts continue to be hotspots for corruption’. Onyanga says the Chief Justice’s public acknowledgement of corruption within her own courts is a positive step. ‘But she must take more radical actions. These include prosecuting and removing High Court judges and other officials, establishing a system to compensate victims of court corruption, and actively engaging civil society groups.’

Full analysis on The Conversation site