Read on Twitter
The first gentleman to be interviewed for the position of Chief Justice, this morning, wrote this. (Judicial decision.)
Judicial independence is jealously guarded (and with good reason). A judge is protected from action (against them) arising from lawful performance of a judicial action. So before someone clever pipes up with this, it is acknowledged.
But. One of the requirements of the job the gentleman is interviewing for (Chief Justice), as per the JSC ad (found here https://jobs.judiciary.go.ke/index.php/public_controller/view_each_job_past?job_ref=V/No.1/2021), is 'professional competence...good temperament, good judgment...'
You have to ask whether these things are evident from *that* decision.
I had forgotten that foolishness runs amok on this website. Here’s why this is a bad decision, from one of his peers.
“The responsibility is placed on the adult, not on the child. To hold otherwise is to turn the law and good sense on its head.”
“The responsibility is placed on the adult, not on the child. To hold otherwise is to turn the law and good sense on its head.”
Happy the JSC (Majanja J, really) has asked him about this. (Muting this thread now because yikes.)
Unmuting to say one/two things. I've seen people discussing this article by Maraga J https://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/tea/news/east-africa/kenya-s-sexual-offences-law-unjust-to-boys-chief-justice-says-1418146. I agree with him, actually. In some jurisdictions, these are called Romeo-Juliet laws. To be clear, the idea is to protect ALL children. (Male) teenagers, as well. Now.
Here is the distinction. In the Charo case, the victim was a 13 year old child. The accused, 23. (If you want to parse out details of what a 13 year old does or does not enjoy, feel free. I will not join you.)
The law on defilement (where an adult, not, say, a 15 year old is the perpetrator) is the way it is, because children do not have the capacity to give consent. That is where it starts and ends. So, 'the child, relating to a 23 year old, enjoyed it' is nonsense.
Idea here, is to protect the child, from adult predation, *and* from (what adults claim) is the child's predilection and proclivities. Basically saying, a 13 year old cannot possibly make a decision of this magnitude, and if an adult is involved, the adult should know better.
Again, there is a LOT of work to be done to make prosecution of SO's fairer to teenage boys. But that is not what is being discussed here.
The good judge here is asking the law to apportion equal responsibility between a 13 year old, and a 23 year old. Surely even you as you, if you think that is sensible, I cannot help you.
That aside, the language he used was injudicious. One of the qualifications required by JSC for post of CJ, again, is temperament, judgment, communication. If you think that language meets all these requirements....
