In Kenya, a proposed housing levy has ignited a renewed conflict between the government and the judiciary, threatening the country’s legal stability. Since gaining independence in 1963, Kenya has strived to transform its judiciary from a colonial vestige to a representative body reflecting its national makeup. Significant strides were made with the enactment of a new constitution in 2010, which enhanced the judiciary’s independence, accountability, and transparency.
However, the relationship between the executive and the judiciary has been contentious, especially after the 2017 Supreme Court decision to nullify the re-election of then-President Uhuru Kenyatta. The court cited irregularities and failures in the electoral process, leading to a rerun which Kenyatta won after the main opposition candidate, Raila Odinga, withdrew.
Tensions have escalated under President William Ruto, who has openly criticized the judiciary following adverse rulings against government policies. The latest standoff began in November when the High Court halted the implementation of a new housing levy intended to fund affordable social housing. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in January, prompting Ruto to accuse the judiciary of corruption and obstruction.
These developments occur in a backdrop of broader concerns about the judiciary’s autonomy, with Ruto’s administration frequently clashing with judicial decisions. The president’s allegations of judicial corruption and his threats to disregard court orders have alarmed legal experts and watchdogs, fearing a slide towards authoritarianism.
The Law Society of Kenya and other legal bodies have expressed concerns about the implications of these conflicts for the rule of law and judicial independence in Kenya. They warn that the ongoing government attacks on the judiciary could undermine public confidence in the legal system and jeopardize the country’s democratic governance.
