BY SAM ALFAN.
Chief Justice Martha Koome has opposed a case challenging Supreme Court rules that bars lawyers and litigants from commenting on an active presidential election petition until the matter is concluded.
The case was filed by lawyer Omwanza Ombati arguing that the rules gazetted effectively gags parties from expressing their views hence unconstitutional.
Justice Koome, however, wants the petition dismissed with costs arguing that Omwanza was only stating that a number of rights alleged to have been violated but has not demonstrated how those rights have been violated.
“I am aware advocates play an indispensable role in the administration of justice and their duty to the court is paramount. Further that as per Section 55 of the Advocate’s Act quoted above, advocates have a duty to ensure the dignity and respect of the court is maintained,” says CJ through Kasavuli.
Through Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court Benard Kasavuli, the CJ adds that advocates must avoid commentary that offends their duty as officers of the court.
She added that the rules are only meant to ensure both the dignity and independence of the court is maintained.
The CJ further says that she is aware that the court went on to state that “the use of social media to disparage the court with the intention of lowering the dignity and authority of the court or influencing the outcome of a case’ pending before the court trespasses the bounds of legitimate advocacy and moves to the realm of professional misconduct.
The CJ said that she was aware the court’s position on the matter of commenting on ongoing cases and more specifically the use of social media is in line with the Law Society Code of Standards of Professional Practice and Ethical Conduct, 2016.
She pointed out that the conduct in using social media Advocates should be mindful of the obligation to uphold the dignity and standing of the profession and should apply the same high standards of conduct to online activity as they do in their day to day professional life.
The CJ further adds that the sub-judice rule is meant to protect judges and from being influenced by discussions outside the courtroom hence infringing on the independence of the court.
She said the rule is an inherent legal doctrine that is applied world over and in essence amendment of the rules was only meant to codify the salient legal principle meant to protect the judges from external interference and enhance the fairness and independence of the courts.
