The Judiciary defended its handling of cases involving abductions and enforced disappearances, insisting that its constitutional mandate is to safeguard fundamental rights while implementation of court orders remains the responsibility of relevant State agencies.
In a statement issued on Saturday, November 7, Judiciary Spokesperson Paul Ndemo said the institution had taken note of a newspaper article questioning its response to cases of abductions and alleged impunity by law enforcement agencies.
Ndemo acknowledged the media’s constitutional role in promoting transparency, accountability and public debate but warned against reporting that misrepresented the mandates of different State institutions.
He maintained that the Judiciary was an independent and impartial arbiter mandated to resolve disputes, determine the rights of parties and hold individuals and institutions accountable based on the Constitution, the law and evidence presented before courts.
“The Judiciary is an independent and impartial arbiter of disputes, not an investigative, prosecutorial or law enforcement agency,” Ndemo said.
The Judiciary strongly condemned abductions, enforced disappearances and other unlawful violations of constitutional rights, noting that courts had consistently exercised their powers to protect victims through judicial interventions, including habeas corpus proceedings.
It further stressed that orders issued by courts in such cases were legally binding and must be obeyed by all individuals and institutions, including State and security agencies.
However, Ndemo clarified that the responsibility for implementing such orders rested with the individuals and institutions to whom they were directed.
The Judiciary urged media organisations to exercise diligence when reporting on alleged human rights violations, particularly in distinguishing the responsibilities of courts from those of investigative, prosecutorial and enforcement agencies.
It warned that attributing the failures of other State institutions to the Judiciary risked misleading the public about where constitutional accountability lay.
The statement comes amid continued public scrutiny of the State’s response to cases of abductions and enforced disappearances, with questions frequently raised about the implementation of court orders requiring security agencies to produce missing persons or account for their whereabouts.
In a related development, the Judiciary recently announced technical challenges affecting its Cause List Portal, prompting the introduction of alternative arrangements to ensure advocates and other court users could access scheduled court proceedings.
In a statement issued on Monday, October 26, the Judiciary said its technical team was working to restore the portal while alternative measures were being implemented to minimise disruption.
Court users were advised to log into their E-Filing accounts and use the Calendar feature to access virtual court links and check matters scheduled before different courts.
The Judiciary also indicated that judges and judicial officers would, where possible, display cause lists during virtual court sessions to enable advocates and other users to follow proceedings.
It apologised for the inconvenience caused and assured court users that efforts were underway to resolve the technical challenges.
If you like our work, you can buy us a soda
Buy us a soda 🥤
