Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi has recently revealed that he and others are eagerly awaiting instructions from the President of the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) to move forward with occupying the Supreme Court.
This statement raises important questions, especially when considering the possibility of the President heeding former Chief Justice David Maraga’s advice to dissolve Parliament.
If this were to happen, there would be a need for by-elections.
However, the situation is complicated by the fact that the courts have already declared that the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) is insufficiently constituted.
This brings the question of who would be responsible for conducting those elections into sharp focus.
A prudent judgment in such matters should prioritize the greater good of the country.
The judiciary takes its time to consider, scrutinize, and analyze decisions thoroughly.
In contrast, the executive, which is responsible for running the country, does not have the luxury of time.
It is often required to make decisions quickly to resolve urgent issues, while the judiciary is more focused on reviewing those decisions after the fact.
There are times when the judiciary may criticize the actions taken by the executive, but that does not mean it is in a position to make quick changes when situations demand immediate action.
It is worth noting that the courts have often spent time handling matters that involve executive decisions, and this is becoming a point of contention.
The executive, it seems, no longer takes orders from the judiciary as it did in the past.
There is a growing sense that the courts are wasting time by engaging in matters that are more closely linked to executive decisions, which are driven by the need for rapid action.
Furthermore, it is important to remember that court orders do not expire quickly unless they are overturned or vacated.
These orders outlive the specific situation or person they target unless they are modified or not enforced.
There are also legal remedies available when court orders are ignored or not complied with.
In situations where the courts and their office bearers fail to uphold the constitution due to personal interests, one has to question why State House should give weight to their advice.
For instance, the case of the Akasha brothers, who were not convicted by Kenyan courts, stands in stark contrast to the actions of the United States.
Despite being far from Kenya, the United States managed to secure a conviction against the Akashas, highlighting concerns about the effectiveness of the local judicial system in addressing critical matters.
In a separate issue, the Catholic Bishops recently made public comments that suggested the possibility of postponing the next general elections.
As for the Supreme Court case in the consolidated Petition No. E291/20, the matter has already been heard, and a judgment is awaited.
This case may not have been fully considered by the Court of Appeal, which may lead to further complications in the legal process.
Overall, the growing tension between the judiciary and the executive is becoming more evident, as questions about the roles and powers of each branch of government continue to arise.
