Kenya’s Supreme Court Justice Martha Coomb announced a change in strategy to combat judicial corruption in March 2025. Country courts are part of a hot spot of corrupt practices, from judges’ bribery to obstructing justice. The judiciary is currently partnering with the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the National Information Services to identify patterns, hot spots and individuals for early intervention. Gedion Onyango, a study of public accountability, anti-corruption and whistleblowing reforms, is examining a new multi-agency approach.
What context was this multi-agency strategy published?
Kenya’s judiciary has been contaminated by corruption for decades. More than half of Kenyans surveyed in 2024 believed that some judges and magistrates were corrupt. 22.9% believed that most were corrupt. Another national survey ten years ago found that 35% of Kenyans thought the judiciary was extremely corrupt.
Clear improvements in public perception (35% to 22%) could be attributed to anti-corruption efforts in Kenya courts. Positive changes can also arise from robust judicial leaders in recent years.
Recently, the Secretary has been asked to resign to resign for failing to act against corrupt judges and magistrates.
The judicial anti-corruption initiative is nothing new. This represents the willingness to implement existing policies and laws that have evolved from previous initiatives.
Kenya’s anti-corruption policy has shifted to a multi-institutional framework. This strategy acknowledges the intertwined nature of corruption. This approach should be cohesive, unified and well coordinated in the public and private sectors.
Kenya’s main anti-corruption agency is the Ethics and Anti-corruption Committee. Since 2015, agents have been trying to redesign the fight against corruption through collective action and partnerships with various public and private sector players.
This strategy comes from lessons learned from a failed approach from the past. For example, the Public Service Integrity Program combines law enforcement and prevention approaches.
Why is there a multi-agency approach to corruption?
Multi-agency initiatives offer several advantages in the fight against corruption.
First, they give the parties a sense of ownership and responsibility for the policy. As a result, the responsibility for fighting corruption is shared, rather than resting alone with the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
This addresses the gap in the fight against corruption not only in Kenya but in other countries.
Policy ownership ensures that anti-corruption measures are better integrated into the unique complexity and norms of each sector. Strengthen policy awareness among key actors, communication through diverse engagement, research through shared research and evaluation, stakeholder engagement, and sector-wide training.
Second, multi-agency approaches create interdependence. Each participating institution provides clear expertise. This approach is evident in a new strategy in which the National Intelligence Service uses intelligence reporting agencies to identify areas susceptible to judicial corruption.
Third, multi-agency initiatives are more likely to cultivate trust among diverse stakeholders. They are involved and share responsibility. Partners are familiar with each other’s strengths and challenges, as well as their own limitations.
Read more: Kenyan whistleblowers are the key to fighting corruption: how new laws protect them
Multi-agency initiatives can turn into an island of performance and build professional communities united by a common purpose.
My 2024 study on collaborative arrangements in Kenya shows the importance of cultivating trust among partners. This is an adhesive bonding agency in complex governance areas such as security.
I have found that when trust is lacking in multi-agency initiatives, its operations tend to be symbolic and inefficient.
What are the obstacles to joint action?
Potential obstacles to joint action can be attributed to lack of commitment, power plays between actors, poor coordination, and weak leadership.
A combination of these factors leads to ineffective communication, mistrust, and even conflict.
Another important factor is political interference. A 2023 survey found that political elites are misusing state power and resources. This fostered a culture of corruption in public life.
Another related obstacle is lack of funding from anti-corruption agencies, judicial agencies, and other watchdog agencies. This has to do with staff retention and effective operation of the committee and other public institutions. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that some institutions live with individuals with questionable integrity.
This suggests that some national anti-corruption agencies are inappropriately positioned to lead joint actions to tackle corruption.
What are the potential for success of a new multi-agency approach?
Kenya’s judiciary needs more than just a non-ministerial strategy to combat corruption within its ranks. It has been a core member of the Kenya Leadership and Integrity Forum for years, but has yet to do some of the things that need to be done. The proposed court consistency committee is not much different from the court performance committee outlined in the program.
Sign up for the AllAfrica newsletter for free
Get the latest African news
success!
Almost finished…
You need to check your email address.
Follow the instructions in the email you sent to complete the process.
error!
There was a problem processing the submission. Please try again later.
The judiciary is also a partner in other multi-agency arrangements. But the courts continue to be a hot spot for corruption.
Read more: A hotbed of corruption: Kenyan elite captures the nation – anxiety is inevitable
What does success look like?
Judicial corruption cannot be addressed on its own. It reflects the overall state of corruption in the country. Effective solutions must include sector-oriented reforms supported by true political will.
Read more: The Art of Bribery: Close-up of how traffic officers work on Kenya roads
The recognition of the chief judge of corruption within her own court is a positive step. But she has to take more fundamental actions. These include the prosecution and removal of high court judges and other officials, the establishment of a system to compensate victims of court corruption, and the involvement of civil society groups actively.
Gedion Onyango, Research Fellow, Philos Lalji African Studies Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science
