A petition has been filed seeking to stop the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) from publishing individual performance data of judges and judicial officers, with a petitioner arguing that the planned move has no legal foundation and poses a threat to judicial independence.
In a petition filed under a certificate of urgency, Duncan Kariuki is seeking interim orders restraining the JSC and its Secretary from releasing the performance data pending the hearing and determination of the case.
Through Gathenji & Co. Advocates, Kariuki contends that the commission intends to publish the data from July 15, 2026, despite the absence of a statutory framework, regulations or policy governing how the information is to be collected, assessed and disclosed to the public. He argues that the proposed publication is not anchored in law and amounts to an unlawful exercise of power, adding that no legal instrument authorizes the release of individual judicial performance statistics.
The petitioner further wants the court to certify the matter as raising substantial constitutional issues under Article 165(4) of the Constitution and refer it to a bench of an uneven number of judges for determination.
According to the petition, the plan to publish the data was announced during the declaration of the successful candidate for the vacant Supreme Court judge position, even though the issue had not been included in the commission’s agenda or supported by any formal policy or resolution. Kariuki argues that while judicial performance can be assessed, the process must be carried out strictly within the framework established under the Judicial Service Act and through legally prescribed regulations rather than by way of a public announcement.
He also warns that releasing individual performance data without clear standards could expose judges and judicial officers to external pressure, undermine their independence and shift the focus from the quality of judicial decisions to the number of cases concluded.
The petition further states that judicial officers cannot control every factor affecting the progress of cases, including adjournments, limited court resources, illness and other administrative challenges, making raw performance figures an unreliable measure of their work.
In support of the case, the petitioner relies on international standards on judicial independence, including the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and the Nauru Declaration on Judicial Well-being, arguing that the proposed publication could erode public confidence in the judiciary and interfere with impartial decision-making.
