Vetting board decision was unlawful Justice Ombija tells court

Justice Nicholas Ombija has described as unlawful the decision by the Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board to declare him unfit to serve in the Judiciary after he resigned.

The High Court judge through lawyers Francis Wasuna and Roger Sagana, told Justice Weldon Korir that he had resigned by the time the board issued the verdict.

Wasuna said that the board vetted the Judge in absentia, even though he had withdrawn his response to the panel, adding that vetting a Judge who has retired is not authorised in law.

He also said the decision to resign from the Judiciary was at the discretion of the Judge.

The lawyers added that the move to declare the Judge unfit to hold office, contravened the law because, it was made by three members of the vetting panel, while the law requires nine members to decide.

Last week, Ombija sued the Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board for it’s decision to declare him unsuitable to continue serving as a judge despite tabling his resignation letter.

Ombija said the Sharad Rao-led board has no jurisdiction to vet him, since he had offered to retire.

He wanted the High Court to quash the vetting board’s decision, claiming it will expose him to ridicule, hatred and contempt.

Ombija also claimed he would suffer public embarrassment and the said determination will discredit his reputation.

Earlier, the board said the Judge would still be grilled saying it did not recognize his resignation letter as it was addressed to the board instead of his employer, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

In his retirement letter, Justice Ombija quoted the Vetting of Judges and Magistrates’ Act, which gives Judges the option of either being vetted or retiring from office.

Justice Ombija was found unfit to hold office in 2012 by the board due to his temperament. However, he continued serving as a Judge as he awaited the vetting board’s decision.

Ombija was to undergo fresh vetting after the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board in a judgement made in November last year.