Judiciary defends itself over abductions, says police must enforce court orders

The Judiciary has challenged criticism over its response to abductions and enforced disappearances, maintaining that courts have taken steps to protect victims but cannot compel compliance with their decisions through direct enforcement.

The institution says its constitutional duty is to determine disputes, safeguard fundamental rights and hold parties accountable through judicial processes, while government agencies, including the police and other security bodies, bear the responsibility of implementing court orders.

In a statement released on Saturday, November 7, Judiciary Spokesperson Paul Ndemo said the institution had noted concerns raised in a newspaper article about its handling of abduction cases and alleged violations involving law enforcement officers.

Ndemo recognised the media's role in questioning public institutions and demanding accountability but cautioned against coverage that blurs the distinction between the mandates of different arms of government.

"The Judiciary recognises and respects the constitutional role of the media in promoting transparency, accountability and public discourse. We welcome constructive scrutiny of judicial institutions.

"However, media freedom carries a corresponding responsibility to report accurately, fairly and with a proper appreciation of the constitutional mandates of different State institutions," the statement read.

The Judiciary explained that its decisions are guided by the Constitution, the law and evidence presented before courts, adding that it operates independently from institutions responsible for investigations, prosecutions and law enforcement.

It argued that its mandate should not be confused with that of security agencies, saying its responsibility is to hear cases, determine the rights of parties and ensure that individuals and institutions are held accountable through the law.

"It is important to appreciate that the Judiciary is an independent and impartial arbiter of disputes, not an investigative, prosecutorial or law enforcement agency.

"The Judiciary's role is to adjudicate disputes, determine rights and hold persons and institutions accountable in accordance with the Constitution, the law and the evidence presented before it," the statement added.

On the growing concerns surrounding abductions and enforced disappearances, the institution said it remained firmly opposed to the unlawful violation of constitutional rights.

It pointed to habeas corpus proceedings and other judicial remedies as some of the measures courts have used to protect individuals whose rights have been violated.

The Judiciary also reminded government institutions and security agencies that court decisions are not optional, insisting that every order issued in such proceedings must be respected and implemented.

"The Judiciary unequivocally condemns abductions, enforced disappearances and other unlawful violations of constitutional rights. Courts have consistently exercised their constitutional mandate to safeguard fundamental rights, including through habeas corpus proceedings and other appropriate judicial remedies.

"Judicial orders ensuing from such proceedings are binding and must be obeyed by all persons and institutions, including State and security agencies. Responsibility for compliance rests with those to whom the orders are directed," the statement further read.

The institution further urged journalists to exercise caution when reporting on alleged human rights violations, particularly when examining whether public institutions have fulfilled their legal obligations.

According to the Judiciary, holding courts responsible for shortcomings within other government agencies creates a false impression of how accountability is assigned under the Constitution.

It maintained that the media should establish whether a reported failure falls within the mandate of the courts or that of investigative, prosecutorial and enforcement bodies before assigning responsibility.

"We therefore urge the media to exercise diligence in distinguishing between the responsibilities of courts and those of investigative, prosecutorial and enforcement agencies.

"Attributing failures of other institutions to the Judiciary misrepresents our constitutional architecture and risks misleading the public about where accountability properly lies," the statement concluded.

Judiciary addresses Cause List Portal disruption

The latest statement comes shortly after the Judiciary announced technical difficulties affecting its Cause List Portal, which prompted it to introduce alternative arrangements for advocates and other court users.

On Monday, October 26, the institution said its technical team was working to restore the system while temporary measures were being put in place to ensure court operations continued without unnecessary interruptions.

The disruption affected access to information on scheduled court sessions, prompting the Judiciary to direct advocates and other users to rely on their E-Filing accounts for details of cases listed before various courts.

"Court Users are advised to log in to their E-Filing accounts and access the Calendar feature to obtain virtual court links and view their respective matters scheduled before the various courts today," the statement added.

The Judiciary also indicated that judges and judicial officers would, where possible, display cause lists during virtual proceedings to enable advocates and other participants to follow the day's schedule.

"Hon. Judges and Judicial Officers will, where possible, project the cause lists during virtual court sessions to facilitate access by Advocates and other Court Users.

"The Judiciary appreciates your patience and cooperation as the technical team works to resolve the issue. We regret any inconvenience caused," the statement concluded.