25) Furthermore,
the Complainant submits that if the applicant cannot turn to the
Judiciary in his country because of a generalized fear for his life, local remedies would
be considered to be unavailable to him.
30. The Complainant avers that local remedies are either unavailable, insufficient or not
effective at all and cannot therefore be accessed freely by him without coming into
contact with artificial impediments, hindrances and hurdles placed on the
Complainant's way, which barriers are utilized by agents of the Respondent State to
impede the Complainant as a legal practitioner and to.the detriment of his clientele.
31.
The Complainant further avers that the ruling of|me Ve
Board of enya: Sed on 25th April 2
if Judges & Magistrates
ress and unequivocal
the effect that local
impede or delay access. to justice. The Complainant avers that this is because the
Vetting Board did not utilise the information supplied to it by the Complainant in
icers, thereby exposing the
ind retaliation by the said
judicial officers as well as retribu'
om their friends, sympathizers and colleagues
in the Government of the Responden'
32.
The Complainant submits that he
Commission of Kenya, the»Office
tate, the Bar and the Bench.
iubmitted
complaints to the Judicial Service
of the Chief Justice, the Vetting of Judges and
Magistrates Board of Kenya, the Office of the former Prime Minister, the Minister of
Justice and Constit
ional Affairs, the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of
the Government Ombudsman, the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights
and to the Law Society of Kenya.
33.
However,
suspicion
deflected
inquiries
the Complainant submits that the complaints were treated with disdain,
and contempt, deliberately prejudiced, trivialized and either filed away,
or dismissed or refused without conducting thorough investigations or
into the serious allegations.
34. . The Complainant argues that he and his clients were denied access to effective local
remedies through, inter alia, the following actions by the judiciary: disqualifying
themselves from hearing the Complainant's cases deliberately to prolong or
By
conclusion of the cases; subjecting the Complainant to “massive deliberate se)