By Reporter
While the Judiciary has asked the former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju, to stop making public statements regarding an ongoing court case involving a company linked to him and a financial institution, Tuju has responded by demanding that the Judiciary should also reprimand two Supreme Court judges who started public debate on the matter..
On Thursday, Judiciary spokesperson Paul Ndemo in a press release warned Tuju that the matter is before the courts and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and as such, the sub judice rule applies.
He said the legal battle between Dari Limited and the East African Development Bank (EADB) was before competent courts and the Judicial Service Commission.
“In accordance with the sub judice rule, which upholds the rule of law and the due administration of justice, these matters should be left for judicial determination and resolution by the JSC,” the statement read in part.
We urge all parties to refrain from litigating their cases through the media or on social media platforms,” Ndemo added.
But Tuju in his response said should he prosecuted for sub judice then the Judges who also spoke on the matter in public should also be prosecuted.
He also demanded to be furnished with specifics of what he said which are subjudice and are not from already filed information in the court public records.
“If I am to be put on the dock for violating the rule of sub judice , I would be glad to be in the same dock with the Supreme court judges who violated the sub judice rules in the first place .On my part I have been silent from April last year when I filed the case against the SCoK judges at the JSC. It is only after they talked it in public that I exercised my right of reply,” he said.
“We urge all parties to refrain from litigating their cases through the media or on social media platforms. We also call on the media to verify facts before reporting on such matters to avoid contributing to misinformation or disinformation,” Ndemo wrote in his statement.
Tuju also in his statement wrote back “ I don’t think you will succeed in gagging the press on matters that are already filed in court. And forget about intimidating me. EADB has been beneficiaries of favorable reports from the media on this matter since 2019.”
These developments come as the Judiciary faces heightened scrutiny following a contentious Supreme Court ruling in favour of a senior bank manager, only for subsequent investigations to reveal that the manager had falsified evidence.
The dispute stems from a 2019 UK court ruling that ordered Dari Limited and its guarantors to repay a loan obtained from EADB, which now seeks to The High Court ratified the judgment, and the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, effectively greenlighting the foreign court’s ruling.
However, Dari Limited’s appeal at the Supreme Court has stalled following a quorum hitch after judges recused themselves from the case.
This came after Tuju accused them of bias in a formal complaint lodged with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).
“In light of the seriousness of the allegations, the bench of the Supreme Court recused itself from the appeal. As a result, the judgment of the Court of Appeal remains in force,” the Judiciary noted.
Last week, Tuju penned an open letter to Chief Justice Martha Koome, and called for formation of a tribunal for two leading counsels..
He maintains that his grievances are genuine, claiming they reflect the lived experiences of ordinary Kenyans seeking justice in the courts, firmly denying any political motivation.
