Justice Katwa Kigen faced intense scrutiny over his past association with President William Ruto during his interview for a position at the Supreme Court, with commissioners raising concerns about impartiality and timing.
The interview, conducted by the Judicial Service Commission, quickly shifted focus from Kigen’s judicial record to questions surrounding his perceived proximity to the Head of State.
Commissioners pressed him on whether his previous professional ties to Ruto could compromise his independence, particularly in the event of a presidential election petition.
Kigen, who was recently appointed to the Court of Appeal, was also questioned over his decision to seek elevation to the apex court barely three months into his current role.
The issue of career progression within the judiciary emerged prominently, with some commissioners suggesting the move could raise concerns about adherence to institutional norms.
Commissioner Martha Koome pointedly questioned the timing of his application, noting that standard human resource practices typically require a minimum period in a role before consideration for promotion.
“You have hardly been there for three months,” she said, underscoring the expectation that judicial officers demonstrate stability and performance before advancing.
In response, Kigen defended his application, maintaining that his qualifications and experience justified his bid for the Supreme Court.
On concerns about bias, he stated that he would be guided strictly by the Constitution and the law in discharging his duties.
However, he acknowledged that public perception could pose a challenge. Kigen admitted that even if he remained impartial, his past links to Ruto might lead to doubts about his neutrality, especially in politically sensitive cases.
The exchange highlights ongoing concerns about judicial independence in Kenya, particularly in relation to high-stakes electoral disputes.
The Supreme Court plays a critical role in determining presidential election outcomes, making the integrity and perceived neutrality of its judges a matter of national importance.
Kigen’s interview now adds to the broader debate on the balance between professional advancement and maintaining public confidence in the judiciary.