The Salaries and Remuneration Commission did not argue that the judges had a financial stake or a personal link to the case. Its complaint was about words. Through its lawyer, Peter Wanyama, the SRC told the court that Chief Justice Martha Koome had previously described the commission as an enemy of the Judiciary, and that this remark raised concerns about bias.
The commission's case rested on perception. It maintained that the remarks had created a perception of conflict and questioned whether it could get justice before Koome and Justice Mohammed Warsame. That is a recognised ground for asking a judge to step aside: the point is not only whether a judge is biased, but whether a fair-minded observer might think so.
The bench saw it differently. In a brief ruling, the two judges declined to recuse themselves. Koome said they have no conflict of interest and no bias, and that they will not be looking at the parties but at hearing and interpreting the constitution.
The dispute at stake is whether judges' car allowances should be taxed. The story does not say when or where Koome allegedly made the remark, what exactly she said, or whether the SRC will appeal. It also gives no date for the ruling.

Comments
Post a Comment