KLRC Blog

The Case For Reform Of The Tribunal System

Introduction

At a time when Kenyans are striving to reform the judiciary, among other institutions, to ensure greater access to justice for majority of the citizens, it is imperative that we examine how Tribunals have fared in resolving disputes either between citizens inter se or between citizens and government departments in Kenya. Tribunals normally address issues of administrative justice, which would otherwise end up for adjudication and resolution by the ordinary courts. To the extent that Tribunals are an important alternative forum to the regular courts for remedying citizen’s grievances and addressing administrative justice issues, it is important to evaluate how they have discharged their critical mandate.

The Kenya Law Reform Commission is obligated by section 5 (6) (b) of the sixth schedule to the Constitution to cooperate, work together and co-ordinate with the Commission for the implementation of the Constitution and the Attorney-General in preparing and tabling in parliament, the legislation required in implementing the Constitution. This is in addition to other values and principles enshrined in the Constitution that the Kenya Law Reform Commission must ensure are adhered to in the preparation of critical legislation required to implement the Constitution both at the National and County levels of Government.

INTRODUCTION

Disposal of dead bodies takes various forms. It includes burials, cremation and entombment. Burial is the act of burying a dead body. It takes the form of interring a person in the ground, and is probably the simplest and most common method of disposing of a body. It is generally accepted to be one of the earliest evident forms of religious practice. Today, most burials are presided over by a religious figure, and in many cultures they are conducted with great respect. In some cultures, exactly how one is buried may make all the difference.

International Commission of Jurists-Kenya v Attorney General & 2 others
High Court, at Nairobi
N.R.O. Ombija J
November 28, 2011.

''Applying International Law principles to the facts of this case, the High Court in Kenya clearly has jurisdiction not only to issue warrant of arrest against any person, irrespective of his status, if he has committed a crime under the Rome Statute, under the principle of universal jurisdiction, but also to enforce the warrants should the Registrar of the International Criminal Court issue one......In respect of this particular case, two warrants of arrest were issued against President Omar Ahmad Hassan Al Bashir [Omar Al Bashir], the sitting President of the sovereign Republic of Sudan on 4th March 2009 with five counts of crime against humanity and two of war crimes on 12th July, 2010 with three counts of genocide for allegedly orchestrating atrocities in the Western Province of Dafur in Sudan. It is in evidence, that subsequent to the issuance, the Registrar of the International Criminal Court [ICC] sent a supplementary request to ask the State parties to the Rome Statute to effect the arrest and surrender of President Omar Ahmad Hassan Al Bashir [Omar Al Bashir] should he come to the respective territory. It is common ground that Kenya is a State party to the Rome Statute.........State parties are under a duty to execute or extradite the perpetrators of International Crimes to the ICC for prosecution. ''