How CJ Martha Koome Finished Herself And The Judiciary

 A lot has been said about the Chief Justice's recent visit to State House, the President's official residence, for extended discussions. We were told the purpose was to resolve differences between the Judiciary and the Executive. Notably, it was the Chief Justice, Martha Koome, who initiated the meeting—not President Ruto. This move, while dramatic, has drawn criticism, with some calling it unconstitutional.

What many haven’t noticed, however, is that this visit is part of two key decisions that have sealed the fate of Kenya’s Judiciary—one that I believe is negative and irreversible. Let me explain why this is so.

First, let’s recognize the context: we live in a fast-paced world where deep analysis is often overlooked. However, understanding the full implications of these actions requires deeper thinking. This isn’t just speculation—it’s an assessment based on public facts and spiritual insights. The spiritual realm, often overlooked, operates like a judicial system. For anything to happen in the physical world, it must first be permitted in the spiritual. Kenya’s Judiciary, being an institution rooted in justice, cannot escape scrutiny during this season of judgment.

The Judiciary's visit to State House is one of these two critical moves. The second is the decision to bar lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi from appearing before the Supreme Court, a move widely seen as unconstitutional. Instead of suing him for alleged defamation, the Judiciary opted for a ban, which raises questions about its motives and integrity. Ahmednasir is a sharp legal mind with extensive knowledge of judicial politics. Trying to silence him only exposes weaknesses in the Judiciary and sets a dangerous precedent.

To understand how institutions can destroy themselves, we can look at history. During the colonial era, Kenya’s Judiciary lost credibility after the infamous trial of Jomo Kenyatta and the Kapenguria Six. A single witness, Rawson Macharia, was coached and bribed to testify falsely against Kenyatta. Years later, the same system that rewarded Macharia turned against him, charging him with perjury. The Judiciary’s complicity in this miscarriage of justice permanently damaged its reputation, making it a cautionary tale.

Today, Kenya’s Judiciary faces similar challenges. Cases are delayed for decades, innocent people languish in prison due to corruption, and judges are accused of misconduct without accountability. While public sympathy often lies with the Judiciary against the Executive, the system itself is far from innocent. The ongoing revelations about judicial corruption are just the beginning of its reckoning.

Ultimately, the time for judgment has come, and no one can escape it. The Kenyan Judiciary, despite its power, will face accountability for the injustices it has perpetuated. My hope lies with the innocent people who have suffered under this system, but I am confident that change is inevitable.