- While the Judiciary remains riddled with corruption and inefficiencies, it receives far less scrutiny from these organisations. This selective activism undermines the credibility of Kenya’s civil society movement.
- Despite its constitutional mandate to uphold justice, the Judiciary in Kenya has been marred by corruption, inefficiency, and lack of accountability.
- Whereas I acknowledge there are good judicial officers with the responsible values, same applies to good public officers and individuals within the Executive and Legislature with sound and responsible values, the fight for good governance must have equality across the three arms of government in Kenya.
Since the inauguration of the current government in 2022, civil society organisations (CSOs) in Kenya have played a pivotal role in advocating for good governance, transparency, and accountability. Their activism has primarily targeted the Executive and the Legislature, fueling widespread need for accountability, including organising protests (mandamano, including the famous Gen-Zs protests), legal battles, and media campaigns to expose corruption, human rights violations, and policy failures.
However, a glaring inconsistency in their approach raises fundamental questions about some of the CSOs’ integrity. While the Judiciary remains riddled with corruption and inefficiencies, it receives far less scrutiny from these organisations. This selective activism undermines the credibility of Kenya’s civil society movement.
I advocate for collaborative governance (specifically, intra-government collaboration) and have spoken and written about this discourse as a possible way to ensure peace, security and good governance in Kenya and Africa. In any democratic nation, as enshrined in the constitution, we have three arms of government accountable for serving the people of Kenya and also provide checks and balances amongst each other. They also have direct responsibility to serve the citizens. If civil society organisations are genuinely committed to good governance, why do they exert immense pressure on the Executive and Legislature while handling the Judiciary with relative leniency?
This article explores the selective governance advocacy by CSOs in Kenya, uncovering the underlying factors and calling for a more holistic approach in alignment with Chapter 6 of the Constitution on leadership and integrity. I draw inspiration in the ongoing push to impeach the supreme court judges, and listening to various submissions to the Judicial Service Commission by various CSOs. See part of the submission in this brief mainstream media video. https://youtu.be/M3T2oVFN0mE?si=545nnhUtsHHOj-Qx
The Role of Civil Society in Governance Advocacy
Civil society organisations are essential pillars of democracy. They act as watchdogs, exposing corruption, advocating for policy changes, and mobilising public participation in governance. Historically, Kenyan CSOs have been instrumental in constitutional reforms, human rights activism, and accountability. Their relentless advocacy led to the passage of the 2010 Constitution, embedding governance principles such as transparency, accountability, and the separation of powers. Specifically looking at the inauguration of the current governance, since 2022, CSOs have intensified their campaigns against corruption, electoral malpractices, and policy failures, leading to high-profile resignations, investigations, and policy reversals. However, their reluctance to address governance failures in the Judiciary raises concerns about their impartiality and commitment to comprehensive reform.
Despite its constitutional mandate to uphold justice, the Judiciary in Kenya has been marred by corruption, inefficiency, and lack of accountability. There is rampant bribery, with many low-income Kenyans unable to access justice due to systemic corruption. Case backlogs, judicial interference, and questionable rulings continue to erode public trust in the Judiciary.
Yet, civil society organisations have largely failed to apply the same scrutiny to the judiciary as the Executive and Legislative branches. CSOs have often remained passive. Some organisations have acknowledged governance failures in the Judiciary but have argued against exerting similar pressure. This selective advocacy weakens the broader struggle for good governance and reduces the impact of their efforts. The selective push for good governance reforms exposes deeper issues within the civil society movement, including inconsistency and potential political bias. Several factors may explain why CSOs target the Executive and Legislature more aggressively while treating the Judiciary leniently:
Political Alignment and Funding Interests: Many CSOs rely on donor funding, influencing their advocacy priorities. If donors emphasise Executive and Legislative accountability over Judicial reforms, CSOs align their campaigns accordingly. Additionally, some civil society groups maintain affiliations with political entities, making them hesitant to confront certain institutions aggressively.
Perceived Power Dynamics: The Executive and Legislature are more politically active and visible, making them easier targets for activism. In contrast, the Judiciary operates “behind closed doors”, making it harder to scrutinise. Moreover, the Judiciary does not respond to public protests in the same way, making direct activism against it seem less effective.
Fear of Judicial Reprisal: Unlike the Executive and Legislature, which face electoral accountability, the Judiciary enjoys security of tenure and immunity from direct political consequences. CSOs that push too hard against judicial corruption risk facing legal challenges, contempt charges, or operational setbacks.
The Cost of Selective Governance Advocacy
By focusing their advocacy selectively, CSOs risk losing credibility and weakening their role as impartial watchdogs. Some key consequences include erosion of public trust in civil society. When CSOs appear to have double standards, the public begins to question their motives. Genuine good governance advocacy requires consistency across all government institutions. Additionally, selective advocacy may lead to what we are experiencing now, sustained judicial corruption and impunity. The lack of sustained scrutiny allows corruption within the Judiciary to thrive, denying justice to ordinary citizens, particularly those who cannot afford legal representation or bribes. Finally, this approach results in weakened governance reforms. Sustainable good governance reform requires a holistic approach. Addressing corruption in the Executive and Legislature while ignoring Judiciary creates an imbalance that undermines governance structures.
For civil society organisations to maintain their credibility and effectiveness in governance advocacy, they must adopt a more holistic approach that includes the Judiciary. They must put equal pressure across all arms of government. CSOs must advocate for Judicial reforms with the same intensity as they do for Executive and Legislative accountability. This includes filing lawsuits against corrupt judges, organising public awareness campaigns, and pushing for transparency-enhancing judicial reforms.
Secondly, CSO must have self-reflection and internal accountability. Civil society groups must uphold the same standards they demand from the government. Chapter 6 of the Constitution on leadership and integrity should guide their operations, ensuring impartiality and credibility. Additionally, CSOs should collaborate with legal professionals, whistleblowers, and affected citizens to expose judicial corruption and advocate for systemic reforms. Public forums, media exposés, and independent audits of the Judiciary should be integral to their strategy. Finally, CSOs must be seen at the forefront in demanding institutional reforms for judicial accountability. CSOs must push for stronger mechanisms to hold the Judiciary accountable, including independent oversight bodies that audit judicial processes and investigate corruption allegations.
Civil Society Must Reflect
The fight for good governance in Kenya must be all-encompassing, addressing corruption and inefficiencies in all three arms of government. The selective advocacy by civil society organisations undermines their credibility and weakens the broader governance reform agenda. If CSOs are genuinely committed to transparency and accountability, they must hold the Judiciary to the same standards as the Executive and Legislature.
Kenyans deserve a justice system that is fair, transparent, and accountable. Whereas I acknowledge there are good judicial officers with the responsible values, same applies to good public officers and individuals within the Executive and Legislature with sound and responsible values, the fight for good governance must have equality across the three arms of government in Kenya. It is time for civil society organisations to reflect on their role, reform their approach, and champion good governance advocacy that is truly impartial and effective. Only by doing so can they restore public trust and contribute meaningfully to a corruption-free Kenya.
YOU MAY ALSO READ: Need for Judicial Accountability in Kenya
