JSC Defends Judges Amid Rising Attacks Over Protest Bail Rulings

The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has issued a stern warning against what it termed as a “dangerous and escalating trend” of public vilification and personal threats directed at judges and magistrates, particularly over bail and bond decisions related to recent protest-related cases.

In a strongly worded statement released on Thursday, JSC Secretary Winfridah Mokaya said the commission is gravely concerned by the backlash following high-profile bail rulings by the Nanyuki and Kahawa Law Courts, and cautioned that such actions risk undermining judicial independence.

Bail Rulings Spark Outrage

The outcry follows the release of 111 protesters arrested during the July 7 Saba Saba demonstrations in Laikipia County. The accused were granted cash bail of Ksh.50,000 each by the Nanyuki Law Courts after being charged with malicious damage to property.

Similarly, in a separate case heard at the Kahawa Law Courts, 37 youth arrested over terrorism-related charges tied to the June 25 and July 7 protests were granted cash bail of Ksh.50,000 or an alternative bond of Ksh.200,000 each.

The rulings sparked intense public debate, with some Kenyans accusing the Judiciary of being too lenient, while others argued that the charges were politically motivated and aimed at silencing dissent.

Former Chief Justice Weighs In

Adding to the controversy, former Chief Justice David Maraga criticized the government for pressing terrorism charges against protesters, calling it a deliberate attempt to criminalize dissent and suppress democratic freedoms.

“Labelling unarmed protesters as terrorists is a dangerous precedent,” Maraga said in a separate statement. “The courts must apply the law without intimidation.”

Judges Targeted Online

In the wake of these decisions, social media platforms saw a surge in calls to expose personal information of the judges, magistrates, and prosecutors involved in the cases — including their phone numbers, photos, and addresses.

JSC condemned these attacks, describing them as a threat to the rule of law and a violation of the dignity and safety of judicial officers.

“Judges do not act on personal whims. Their decisions are guided by the Constitution, the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Judiciary’s bail and bond policy guidelines,” Mokaya emphasized.

A Dangerous Precedent

The Commission noted that judicial officers are constitutionally mandated to adjudicate matters independently and impartially, and that any dissatisfaction with rulings should be addressed through the legal system — including the right to appeal or seek review.

“The law provides adequate mechanisms for redress. Personal attacks, threats, or online harassment are unacceptable and unlawful,” the statement added.

Judiciary’s Bail and Bond Policy Explained

The Judiciary’s bail and bond policy, launched in 2015, seeks to ensure fairness, equality before the law, and presumption of innocence. It allows for bail to be granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it — including risk of flight, interference with witnesses, or threats to public safety.

According to Mokaya, the bail amounts set by the courts reflect a balance between public interest and the rights of the accused, and are not indicative of the seriousness or triviality of the charges.

Security for Judicial Officers Tightened

Amid the rising tension, Mokaya assured the public that the Judiciary Police Unit has implemented enhanced security measures to protect judicial officers.

“The Judiciary takes the security of its officers seriously and is working closely with relevant agencies to ensure their safety,” she said.

Commission Reaffirms Judicial Independence

Reiterating its stance, the JSC said it remains steadfast in upholding the decisional independence of the Judiciary — a core pillar of democracy and justice.

“We reaffirm our unwavering commitment to defending the independence of all judicial officers and judges. They must be free to make decisions without fear, favour, or intimidation.”

Civil Society and Legal Bodies React

The statement by JSC was welcomed by civil rights groups and legal associations, including the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) and Amnesty International Kenya, which have both raised alarm over growing threats to the judiciary.

In a joint press release, the groups emphasized the need to respect court decisions, regardless of public sentiment.

“Judicial independence must be non-negotiable. The current climate of hostility is dangerous and could lead to self-censorship or biased rulings,” the statement read.

Political Context and Public Perception

The controversy over bail rulings comes against the backdrop of mounting public discontent, widespread protests over the Finance Act 2024, and allegations of police brutality. Many protesters, largely youth-led, view the Judiciary as a battleground for justice — especially in cases involving police crackdowns and political repression.

However, legal experts warn that politicizing the judiciary or attacking its officers could have long-term consequences on Kenya’s democratic institutions.

“If we undermine the courts now, we will have no place to turn when our own rights are violated,” said constitutional lawyer Steve Ogolla.

Conclusion

The Judicial Service Commission’s strong rebuke of public attacks against judges sends a clear message: the independence of the Judiciary must be protected at all costs. While debates on bail and bond rulings are part of a healthy democracy, threats, harassment, and misinformation only serve to weaken the justice system that Kenyans rely on.

As the country navigates a period of heightened political and social tension, it is more important than ever to preserve the sanctity of the courts — and to resolve disputes within the framework of the law.