Dr. Ekuru Aukot has once again placed the judiciary at the center of public scrutiny after raising concerns about delays in rulings allegedly linked to Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu.
Aukot, who has been vocal on issues of governance and accountability, questioned why the DCJ has reportedly failed to deliver 28 verdicts over the past three months.
He suggested that this prolonged silence is not just an administrative issue but could be tied to deeper problems within the system.
In his remarks shared online, Aukot hinted that a “little bird” had informed him of a possible KES 100 million deal connected to the delayed rulings.
This revelation has triggered public debate on whether corruption or external influence could be interfering with the judicial process.
According to Aukot, such conduct, if verified, would not only point to gross misconduct but also undermine the credibility of the country’s highest court. He emphasized that he and other concerned citizens are compiling evidence and that he would not hesitate to expose the details if authorities fail to act.
Aukot addressed his message to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). He demanded to know what these key institutions are doing to protect the integrity of the judiciary and ensure that justice is not delayed or influenced by money.
He stated that accountability must apply to everyone, including those at the very top of the judicial hierarchy.
Tagging senior lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi in his post, Aukot sought his opinion on the issue, arguing that such alleged misconduct reflects poorly on the entire judiciary. Ahmednasir, who has often criticized corruption within the legal system, was invited to weigh in on whether such behavior can be tolerated in a nation struggling with issues of justice and fairness.
Aukot’s statements have since gained wide attention, sparking conversations among legal experts, activists, and ordinary Kenyans.
Reactions online have been sharply divided. Some Kenyans supported Aukot’s boldness, calling for immediate investigations to determine whether there is any truth behind the KES 100 million allegation. Others, however, urged patience, saying the claims should be handled carefully to avoid damaging the reputation of individuals before proper verification.
Despite the differing opinions, many agree that the allegations highlight long-standing concerns about delays and integrity in Kenya’s justice system.
The controversy now adds pressure on judicial oversight bodies to act transparently. If the allegations are found to have merit, they could open a major scandal within the judiciary, further eroding public confidence in the Supreme Court.
Aukot’s call for accountability has reignited debate on whether Kenya’s judicial system is truly independent or compromised by corruption and influence.
