Court Rules Police Must Consult JSC Before Altering Judges' Security

The High Court has prohibited the National Police Service (NPS) from withdrawing or disarming security officers assigned to judges without prior consultation with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). The ruling underscores the importance of safeguarding judicial independence and protecting judges from intimidation.

Justice Aburili declared that the unilateral withdrawal of security details, especially in the case of Justice Lawrence Mugambi, was unconstitutional. This decision followed an incident where Justice Mugambi’s security was withdrawn soon after he held the then Acting Inspector General of Police, Gilbert Masengeli, in contempt of court.

Key Court Findings

• Security for judges is integral to their ability to perform constitutional duties free from fear of harm or retaliation.
• Disarming or removing police protection without alternative security places judges at immediate risk.
• Any changes to judicial security must involve formal consultation with the JSC, which oversees the judiciary under Article 171 of the Constitution.
• Allowing police to independently decide on judges’ security risks executive interference and compromises judicial independence.

The case arose after Justice Mugambi’s security officers were disarmed and withdrawn over a weekend in September 2024, shortly after his contempt ruling against Masengeli. The police cited a VIP refresher training as justification, but the court found the timing and lack of communication suspicious and unconstitutional.

Justice Aburili noted that these actions violated multiple constitutional provisions, including Articles 10, 19, 20, 21, 27, 47, 73, 159, 160, 244, and 245, and declared the withdrawal invalid under Article 2(4).

This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s independence and the necessity of protecting judicial officers from external pressures and intimidation.