The Judicial Service Commission is once again under the spotlight, this time for its handling of bribery claims against Judge Fred Nyagaka. A storm has been brewing after reports emerged that the judge allegedly pocketed 10 million shillings from businessman Ben Limo in exchange for a favorable ruling in a land dispute.
According to Limo, the money was delivered through an intermediary, but the expected decision never came. What shocked many was that on August 20, 2025, Limo sent the judge a demand letter asking for his money back, and this letter later spread widely on social media, exposing the matter to the public.
This case did not stand alone. Earlier in September, Captain Kungu Muigai claimed that judges had taken more than 825 million shillings in bribes, igniting public outrage.
Against this backdrop, the JSC came out with a statement on September 22, saying it had taken note of the allegations and had launched an investigation. However, the commission stopped short of naming the judge or explaining what concrete steps it was taking.
To many Kenyans, this looked less like accountability and more like a cover-up to protect one of their own.
Critics, led by former Law Society of Kenya president Nelson Havi, have openly condemned the JSC. Havi pointed out that instead of summoning Judge Nyagaka and Ben Limo to give statements, the authorities turned their attention to journalist Collins Kweyu, who was investigating the story.
Kweyu was arrested and detained overnight at Nairobi’s Central Police Station before being released on bond.
To Havi, this was nothing but a diversionary tactic designed to silence exposure of judicial misconduct.
He insisted that the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, not the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, should be handling such a case.
The arrest of Kweyu drew sharp criticism from press freedom groups and Amnesty International, which described it as an attack on journalism.
Legal experts like Ahmednasir Abdullahi have admitted that while the allegations are serious, they risk being swept aside under the pretext of protecting judicial independence.
This only deepens public suspicion that the JSC is playing games instead of confronting the rot head-on.
The frustration has been captured in statements from those following the case, with some insisting that they had warned the judge weeks earlier and were ready to file a plaint to recover the money, even if the court rules that bribes cannot be refunded.
Such remarks reveal the level of anger and disillusionment with a system seen as protecting corrupt officials.
Every time the JSC issues vague promises without action, it chips away at the trust Kenyans place in their courts. Corruption in the judiciary does not only delay justice but also ensures that only the wealthy and powerful can tilt the scales in their favor.
The fact that a businessman has openly admitted to paying a bribe and is now demanding his money back lays bare how deep-rooted the problem has become.As things stand, Kenyans are watching closely. Empty assurances will not cut it this time.
The commission must prove that it can rise above its instinct to shield its own and instead demonstrate that no judge is untouchable.
If it fails, the outrage will only grow, and protests against judicial corruption will likely intensify. For a body tasked with safeguarding accountability, the JSC’s credibility is on the line, and the public will not settle for excuses.
