BY SAM ALFAN.
People living with disabilities under the Ulemavu Initiative have petitioned the removal of High Court Judge Anthony Mrima over incompetence, bias and gross misconduct.
Through their leader Michael Makarina, the group wants the Judicial Service Commission to remove Justice Mrima over his decision to convict Director of Criminal Investigations George Kinoti over claims of failing to return firearms belonging to businessman Jimmy Wanjigi.
According to the group, the conduct of the judge went against all principles of Judicial Independence, conduct, rule of law and constitutionalism as it smacks deliberate misconduct or incompetency.
Through lawyer Danstan Omari, the group wants JSC to determine the actions of Justice Mrima amounted to incompetence, corrupt, bias and gross misconduct and breach of Judicial Code of Conduct and Ethics and oath of office and consequent to this determination initiates the necessary procedures for his removal from office.
Makarina wants the JSC to suspend the judge for his show of bias and find the conduct of Justice Mrima be investigated to ascertain any benefit he may have received for taking a deliberate legal misdirection. He also wants the judge to be dismissed from discharging, executing his duties.
Makarina argues that the judge has used his power, office and authority in unaccountable manner meant to frustrate DCI Kinoti and to expose mwananchi to danger as the said convict as the court has since observed, is a man with huge National responsibilities as Director of Criminal Investigations by sentencing him to jail term consequently ignoring sentencing policy Guidelines of 2015.
“It is palpable that the accused judge has been acting with malafides, morbid and ill will with sore him of humiliating Kinoti either through his convenient, misreading, misapplying and misunderstanding of contempt of court proceedings in a manber that render picayune of import of Director’s rights to a fair trial and right to a fair hearing or the court’s show of incompetency that jeopardize the rights of DCI Kinoti,” says Makarina.
In the petition, Makarina argue that the intimation that the Inspector General was to bring Kinoti to court to answer to the charge of contempt long after DCI Kinoti had been sentenced is baffling and a demonstration of the court’s inability to appreciate that the invitation is belated and obviously reverse of the process and procedures as they are understood in law and in practice.
He further accuses the judge of refusing to appreciate the material evidence presented before him as proof that the conviction and sentence against DCI Kinoti was erroneous, baseless, worse, unmerited and unsupported by any tangible proof or evidence
