88. The second is a decision by the Supreme Court (Petition No.13A, 14, 15 (2013)) which he
believes has confirmed the finality of the Vetting Board's conclusions. The Complainant in
this regard, refers to the "Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board Determinations Concerning the
Judges of the Court of Appeal" submitted as an annex to his submissions. In this document,
the Vetting Board recognized that "corruption remains one of the greatest challenges to the
judiciary" and also stated that:
"A series of complaints in this regard were made by an Advocate - whom I shall not name for
reasons of confidentiality. The judges' response though dealt adequateLy with the complaints. Some
of the complaints were even sent to the United Nations, the International Criminal Court and other
bodies. Clearly there has been a complete breakdoum of trust and professional respect between the
Advocate concerned and the judiciary, with negative results all round. The situation calls for
intervention by the Law Society of Kenya with a view to achieving,an appropriate remedy".
89. The Complainant's submission indicates that the Vetting'~nd Magistrates 'Board in another
part of its report, found that:
"Complaints were received from an Advocate that the judge acted in a discriminatory way against
the complainant ... the board found that although the situation: is manifestly unsatisfactory, for the
purposes of the Vetting process the judge's responses were (( , uate. The Board noted that the same
Advocate had laid complaints against every judge in the Cou
,,/'.ppeal, all basically to the effect
that they were unfairly hostile to him and discriminated against him ... "
90. From the evidence presented above, the Commission is able to make the following
observations, the first of which is that corruption was indeed recognized as a challenge to
the integrity of the judiciary, and the second of which is that the evidence provided does
not however lead tq!baconclusion that the decision of the Vetting Board is "an express and
unequivocal official ptp,lic admission ... that local judicial remedies are either unavailable,
insufficient or are not effectively accessible", as put forward by the Complainant.
91. Furthermore, the findings of the Vetting Board as to the existence of corruption in the
judiciary does not prevent the Complainant from appealing the final decisions of the
domestic cases he is involved in to the Court of Appeal, as the majority of these cases are at
the High Court. AS'per sections 163 - 165 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya
(2010), decisions of the High Court may be appealed to the Court of Appeal, whereas cases
at the Court of Appeal may be appealed to the Supreme Court "as of right in any case
involving the interpretation or application of this Constitution; and in any other case in which the
Supreme Court, or the Court of Appeal, certifies that a matter of generaL pubLic importance". Mr.
Ngoge's domestic case pertaining to the right of Ms. Ekea, which forms the basis for the
present Communication, is therefore entirely separate and distinct from the decision of the
Vetting Board, at least in so far as exhaustion of local remedies are concerned.
92. In Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia=, the complainant in that case argued that domestic
remedies were unavailable and ineffective due to the lack of independence of the judi~~
which is often subject to unlawful interference from the State. The complainan ..,p''poftecf~'
33 Communication
299/05 - Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia, paras 34, 35
74th Ordinary Session of the ACHPR
l' (
~
.
,
,'-;
J
)
16uf /
\ '6~
..... ~J'
.....___,/_
.
/
\),,-"""
s'o \' ~~"RIC"\~ ~, • <,'
(.)v
c. '.'
°MME E' ~ ....