Hezron Njoroge | NATION Mr Justice Lee Muthoga when he appeared before the Judicial Service Commission to be interviewed for the position of Chief Justice on Moay 05, 2011 at Anniversary Towers, Nairobi.
By EMEKA-MAYAKA GEKARA gmayaka@ke.nationmedia.com
Posted Thursday, May 5 2011 at 22:00
Posted Thursday, May 5 2011 at 22:00
In Summary
- Muthoga accused of destroying document, making it difficult for politician’s family to access his estate
The controversy over the will of Nyandarua politician JM Kariuki, who was killed in 1975, came to haunt judge Lee Muthoga on Thursday as he defended his suitability for the post of Chief Justice.
Questions were also raised about his advanced age. At 66, it was argued that the judge would only serve for less than four years as Chief Justice — the holder of the post is required to retire at 70.
But the judge said that three years were enough to make a difference.
Mr Justice Muthoga, who is a judge with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, was accused of destroying a file containing JM’s will, effectively making it difficult for his family to access his estate.
Judicial Service Commission members Emily Ominde and Ahmednasir Abdullahi said the matter had raised questions about Mr Justice Muthoga’s integrity.
Mr Ahmednasir quoted a newspaper report claiming that one of Mr Kariuki’s widows said Mr Justice Muthoga, who was the politician’s lawyer, had advised the family to burn the file believed to have contained the will.
However, Mr Justice Muthoga denied the accusation, saying that it was an income tax file.
“She must have said those words in distress. It was an income tax file and the decision was made by the family. The file did not contain any material that would have led someone to conclude that we were concealing something,” he told the commission.
But he was hard-pressed to explain why he advised that the file be burnt even though it was an income tax one, an act that would have led to prosecution for a crime.
He accepted that as a young lawyer he could have made mistakes.
There were also concerns about his role in an inquiry set up by former president Daniel arap Moi to investigate former attorney-general Charles Njonjo on claims that he was plotting to overthrow him. Mr Justice Muthoga was the counsel assisting the commission.
Mr Ahmednasir said that as a young lawyer, Mr Justice Muthoga had fought many wars with Mr Njonjo and, therefore, could only have been engaged as President Moi’s hatchet man to bring down the former AG.
The judge and other colleagues in the Law Society of Kenya had demanded that the bench be Africanised with more black African judges running the Judiciary, a campaign resisted by Mr Njonjo.
Some critics have said that the commission was a charade because the political decision to end Mr Njonjo’s career had already been taken and the commission could hardly have found the former AG innocent.
However, Justice Muthoga said he had nothing against Mr Njonjo and defended himself as a man of integrity.
He identified corruption, poor training and technology as the major challenges facing the Judiciary.
But Mrs Ominde thought he was being disdainful to judges and magistrates — who he intends to lead — when he said that the Judiciary suffered from severe intellectual capacity deficit.
Other members of the interview panel were Attorney-General Amos Wako, Prof Christine Mango, High Court judge Isaac Lenaola and Mr Titus Gateere of the Public Service Commission.
Appellate judge Riaga Omolo, who was also interviewed for the job on Thursday, is a member of the commission. He found himself in a difficult position when he was pushed to his defence by fellow commissioners.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment