The Parklands Diary

                                                                        Image from Google Introduction The independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of any democratic society, ensuring a system of checks and balances that upholds the rule of law. However, recent events in Kenya have raised concerns about the erosion of judicial independence, with President William Ruto openly criticizing and undermining the judiciary. This article examines the nature of these attacks, their implications, and the underlying reasons behind them. I.                        The Role of an Independent Judiciary Before delving into the specifics of President Ruto's attacks, it is essential to understand the significance of an independent judiciary. In a democratic system, the judiciary acts as a neutral arbiter, ensuring that laws are interpreted and applied fairly. An independent judiciary is essential for upholding the rule of law and ensuring that court decisions are based on the nation’

                                                              Image from Google The goal of sentencing in the judicial system is multifaceted, aiming at retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, restorative justice, community protection, and denunciation. [1] These goals, however, can sometimes be in conflict, raising critical questions about how they are achieved through judicial decisions. This blog reviews how the Kenyan Judiciary has addressed these issues, particularly focusing on the transformative jurisprudence regarding the unconstitutionality of life imprisonment. Globally, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) asserts that the primary objectives of imprisonment should be the reformation and social rehabilitation of the criminal. [2] This sets a foundational principle that punishment should offer a pathway to rehabilitation and potential reintegration into society. In Kenya, various offenses mandate a life sentence. The Sexual Offences Act, for

                                              Image on Freepik That the President acknowledges judicial tyranny and impunity as major impediments to the realization of justice and the rule of law is adequate. It is an open secret in the public domain. Granted, the President is an equal shareholder in this country and reserves the right to his own opinion as well as ‘a fair hearing.’ However, publicly chastising elements within one arm of government by another and threatening them with quasi-judicial actions in response to their judgements in the absence of solid incriminating evidence is totally reckless and uncouth. It altogether nullifies the President’s averment that he recognizes the independence of the Judiciary and the significance of the rule of law. It elevates him to becoming a law unto himself and betrays his solemn promise to uphold the spirit and the letter of the 2010 Constitution at his swearing in. The Presidency is the highest office in the land, mandated with performin