The government immediately rejected the ruling thus opening the noisy exchange with the judiciary and some human rights activists. It also opened a diplomatic spat between
Kenya and .
The three- pronged spat has raised critical Questions among Kenyan analysts. Sudan
The first is; for who does the Kenyan law and the Kenyan Judiciary exist? Whose interests should come first in the dispensation of justice? What does the independence of a judiciary mean? What should it limits be and who defines such limits? What is the role of the Judiciary in the protection of Kenyan interests world-wide? When it come to arbitrating international disputes what should be the guiding yard stick?
In attempt to answer these questions; the legal profession performed dismally. And this could put the entire profession into a state of disrepute in the eyes of Kenyans. A flurry of opinion pieces and editorial in the local press simply exposed the dilemma the ruling put even the legal profession in.
All of them harped on this myth of the independence of the judiciary to justice what was clearly a “political ruling from the bench,” said a local analyst. The “apologists” of the ruling demonstrated clearly the hypocrisy of the legal profession when one of their number stirs public anger.
The Sudanese president responded using arm-twisting tactics. He ordered the Kenyan Ambassador out within 72 hours and recalled its Ambassador in
. Other measures that were not
publicly announced included: the expulsion of all Kenyans living and working in
Kenya Sudan, cessation of trade
relations, and the ban of all flights entering or leaving from Over-flying Sudanese
airspace. Clearly Kenya
interests were threatened Kenya
It is not clear the how far
Sudan would have carried out
these threats or if carried out at all or how long they would have been in
force in Sudan. However, a system as
temperamental as Sudan’s could have put these
injurious threats in place-for a while
The short and the long of it all is this: the judge should have considered all these facts before handing out the ruling. By handing out the ruling oblivious of these facts in effect handed
Sudan the diplomatic coup against Kenya
that was evident last week.
Strangely the legal profession does not think it is their business to protect Kenyans and
Kenya’s interests world-wide. They think that
somebody else should. Which brings to mind a case in Britain
that the ‘apologists” referred. A magistrate’s court issued a warrant of arrest
against a former Israeli Foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, at the request of
lawyers representing Palestinian victims of Israeli military operations in Gaza.
The Israeli Government rejected the ruling. The British government was embarrassed and amended the law removing a private prosecutor’s freedom to seek a warrant of arrest in exercise of "universal jurisdiction.” Now private prosecutors must obtain the consent of the director of public prosecutions before the issuing of a warrant of arrest by any court in exercise of "universal jurisdiction.”
The question still remains are judges and Lawyers oblivious of national interests? If that is the case, then do they understand the role of the Law in the first place? By definition; the Law is a social contract between the citizens of a country to protect their common good? This means national interest take precedent over other considerations. In other words the Law cannot supersede national interests.
So was the ruling right? To the extend that it subordinated Kenyan interests to other interests, it was a ruling in error. No wonder Kenyans are reading “politics” in the ruling. According to the Political school of thought, the ruling may have been obtained in a bid to prove to the ICC, where six Kenyans are charged with crimes related to the 2007/08 post-election violence, that
Kenya is not ready to Co-operate with it. This would mean
that should the Court rule that their cases are admissible, then two of the
six, who are presidential candidates in the 2012 election, could be detained.
Once detained that would pave the way for some interested candidates to win the
This line of thought is helped by the fact that the judge appear to have depended on political opinion of the two principals in
Kenya’s coalition government.
The judge is reported to have quoted the opinion of those letters to make his
ruling. It is not surprising then that politicians took the Judiciary by the
And the judiciary, specifically the Chief Justice is not helping matters any by jumping into the fray. In fact the Parliament had to advise him to stop jumping into such disputes because they could be taken to the Supreme Court for arbitration and embarrass him. The CJ is the President of the Supreme Court in
The ruling lacked in wisdom, say analysts. Wisdom would have obligated the judge to consider the potential for embarrassing the country. He should also put Kenyan interests and not those of ICC or any other provision of the law ahead of Kenyan interests. The promulgation of any law, say analysts, should not be divorced from national wisdom. Probably other subjects, such as Diplomacy, economics and basic accounts should be introduced at the Law school to make judges wiser, say analysts.