JSC condemns attacks on judicial officers over bail, bond decisions

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has condemned what it described as a growing wave of personal attacks against judicial officers over bail and bond rulings.

In a statement on Thursday, July 17, the commission’s secretary, Winfridah Mokaya, said the attacks, following decisions made by the Nanyuki and Kahawa law courts, undermine the rule of law and threaten the independence of the Judiciary.

“Such conduct misrepresents the Judiciary's constitutional role, undermines judicial independence and corrodes public trust in the administration of justice, a cornerstone of our democratic society,” Mokaya stated. 

The Commission further noted that bail and bond rulings are guided by legal frameworks, not personal opinions, including the Constitution, the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Judiciary’s Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines.

JSC noted that any party dissatisfied with a court ruling has the constitutional right to seek redress through appeals or reviews.

The commission has also reaffirmed its commitment to defending judicial officers as they discharge their constitutional duties with integrity and courage. It also assured all judicial staff that the Office of the Chief Registrar, in coordination with the Judiciary Police Unit, would ensure their safety and the secure functioning of court stations.

The JSC's response comes amid growing public concern over the high bail and bond terms imposed on suspects arrested during the June 25 protests.

Former Chief Justice David Maraga, speaking at the Kahawa Law Courts yesterday, accused the government of “weaponising the criminal justice system to terrorise arrested youth and their families.”

He criticised the use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and involvement of the Anti-Terrorism Police Unit (ATPU), calling it a violation of constitutional rights, including freedom of assembly, freedom from arbitrary detention, and the right to reasonable bail.

“Leading the team of advocates present, we pleaded with the Court to grant reasonable bail terms, given that most of the young people have irregular incomes”.

He noted that bail and bond terms in the three protest-related cases varied, from a Sh200,000 bond to Sh50,000 cash bail, amounts many families could not afford.

High Court advocate Joshua Nyawa echoed Maraga’s concerns, arguing that recent bail and bond decisions appear arbitrary. “Lately, bail and bond decisions feel arbitrary. Kenyans must be free to protest even against the judiciary. It’s neither sacred nor above criticism, not a deity. Calling public feedback “unwarranted” is unfair,” he argued. 

Lawyer Willis Otieno also called on magistrates and judicial officers to uphold their independence and resist pressure to turn the courts into political tools.

“Magistrates and judicial officers must guard their judicial independence jealously and avoid any conduct that creates the perception that the judiciary is being weaponised as an extension of the executive or security apparatus,” Otieno stated.

Former Attorney General Justin Muturi linked the rising bail amounts to recent remarks by Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen.

“The complaint by the CS, I see it as having been directed to the judiciary by way of intimidation. After he complained about the Sh50,000 cash bail, we got Sh100,000 cash bail demand on the protesters arraigned at Thika Law Courts,” said Muturi said.

Senior counsel Paul Muite commented, “Imposing these unreasonably tough bail conditions on Gen Zs charged with politically motivated terrorism offences violates the Constitutional Right to Bail. Magistrates should avoid being perceived as an extension of the executive”.