understands that the Vetting Board is a body constituted by the Parliament of Kenya through the Vetting of Judges and Magistrates Act (Act No.2 2011) to review, within a certain time period, the suitability of judges and magistrates in office from the effective date of the Act. The Vetting Board subsequently produced its report on 25 April 2012. 65. As accurately indicated by the Complainant, the Supreme Court did indeed confirm the finality of the Vetting Board's conclusions by affirming that a /I removal, or a process leading to the removal, of ajudge, from office by virtue of the operation of legislation ... shall not be subject to question in, or review by, any court"?». 66. The Commission is of the view that while the decision of the Supreme Court may preclude a Judge or a Magistrate who has been found unsuitable to serve from appealing the Vetting Board's decision, it does not render the same true in regard to the domestic cases that the Complainant is pursuing in local courts. The aforementioned domestic cases are separate and distinct from the decision of the Vetting Board as to the suitability or unsuitability of judges to serve. As held by the Supreme Court, the Vetting Board is not a court of law, and accordingly, it did not make any determinations as to whether the rights of the Complainant were violated in any of the specific complaints that were brought before it by the Complainant alleging that certain Judges had discriminated against him. As earlier indicated, during the vetting process, the Complainant had allegedly submitted complaints to the Vetting Board claiming corruption amongst Judges of the Court of Appeal. The Vetting Board merely acknowledged the complaints and stated that it "will contact the LSK [Law Socien) of Kenya] in this respect [and that] ...It is not in a position to make a finding against the Judge in respect of these complaints" . 67. 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 in some cases and to the Supreme Court in others, 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 1/ application of this Constitution; and in any other case in which th " Court, ') ~m:2;;I-WIIJ.ol or the Court of Appeal, certifies that a matter of general puql ,_~ilif-V11ta1Jfi"t' ~O'. r. h b .1,o~~f th e-......pres .q"'-o Ngoge's domestic. cases, w hiich f orm teas v ~a oy Communications, are therefore entirely separate diS~ct ~fo~ ~ . decisi~n of the Vetting Board, at least in so far as eXli\.~a~J.~tiOri of'dom~qCjt remedies are concerned. oi.~ , ~ R' r , ql "1 'i-:.. 20 As above, See also Constitution of Kenya, Sixth Schedule, Article 23 (2) It,., <~~" ?JI~0J <'''';;f 15