Kenya’s chief justice, Martha Koome, announced a change of strategy in March 2025 to fight corruption in the judiciary. The country’s courts are some of the hotspots of corrupt practices, from bribery of judges to obstruction of justice. The judiciary will now partner with the national anti-corruption commission and the National Intelligence Service to identify patterns, hotspots and individuals for early intervention. Gedion Onyango, who researches public accountability, anti-corruption and whistleblowing reforms, examines the new multi-agency approach.
What is the context in which this multi-agency strategy was announced?
The Kenyan judiciary has been tainted by corruption for decades. More than half of Kenyans surveyed in 2024 believed some judges and magistrates were corrupt; 22.9% believed most were corrupt. In another national survey 10 years earlier, 35% of Kenyans regarded the judiciary as highly corrupt.
The apparent improvement in public perceptions (from 35% to 22%) may stem from anti-corruption efforts in Kenyan courts. The positive changes could also result from robust judicial leadership in recent years.
Most recently, there have been calls for the chief justice to resign for failing to act against corrupt judges and magistrates.
The judicial anti-corruption initiative isn’t entirely new. It represents a will to implement the existing policy and laws that have evolved from previous initiatives.
Anti-corruption policies in Kenya have shifted to multi-agency frameworks. This strategy acknowledges the intertwined nature of corruption. The approach has to be cohesive, unified and well coordinated, in the public and private sectors.
Kenya’s lead anti-corruption agency is the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission. Since 2015, the agency has sought to re-engineer the fight against corruption through collective action and partnerships with a range of public and private sector players.
This strategy draws from lessons learned from failed approaches from the past. The Public Service Integrity Program, for instance, combined law enforcement and prevention approaches.
Why the multi-agency approach against corruption?
Multi-agency initiatives offer several advantages in the fight against corruption.
First, they give those involved a sense of owning the policy and having responsibility. As a result, the responsibility for combating corruption is shared rather than resting solely with the national anti-corruption commission.
This addresses a gap in the battle against corruption not just in Kenya but in other countries.
Policy ownership ensures that anti-corruption measures are better integrated into the unique complexities and norms of each sector. It enhances policy awareness among key actors, communication through diverse engagements, research through shared studies and assessments, stakeholder engagements, and training across sectors.
Second, the multi-agency approach creates interdependence. Each participating institution contributes distinct expertise. This approach is clear in the new strategy, where the National Intelligence Service uses intelligence to identify areas susceptible to corruption in the judiciary.
Third, multi-agency initiatives are more likely to cultivate trust among diverse stakeholders. They engage and share responsibilities. Partners become familiar with each other’s strengths and challenges, as well as their own limitations.
Read more: Kenya's whistleblowers are key to fighting corruption: how a new law could protect them
Multi-agency initiatives can turn into islands of performance, building a professional community united by a common purpose.
My 2024 study of collaborative arrangements in Kenya shows that cultivating trust among partners is critical. It is the glue binding agencies in complex governance areas, such as security.
I found that when trust is absent from a multi-agency initiative, its operations tend to be symbolic and inefficient.
What are the obstacles to joint action?
The potential obstacles to joint action may stem from lack of commitment, power play among actors, poor coordination and weak leadership.
A combination of these factors will lead to ineffective communication, distrust, and even conflicts.
Another critical factor is political interference. According to a 2023 survey, political elites have misused state power and resources. This has fostered a culture of corruption in public life.
Another related obstacle is under-funding of anti-corruption agencies, the judiciary and other oversight institutions. This has a bearing on staff retention, and effective operations of the commission and other public institutions. Under these circumstances, it is no surprise that some institutions have been inhabited by individuals with questionable integrity.
This suggests that some national anti-corruption institutions are ill-positioned to spearhead joint actions to tackle corruption.
What are the chances of success for the new multi-agency approach?
The Kenyan judiciary requires more than just a multi-agency 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 were required. The proposed court integrity committees do not differ much from the court performance committees outlined in the programme.
The judiciary has been a partner in other multi-agency arrangements too. But the courts continue to be hotspots for corruption.
Read more: Hotbed of corruption: Kenya's elite have captured the state – unrest is inevitable
What would success look like?
Judicial corruption cannot be addressed in isolation. It reflects the overall state of corruption in the country. Effective solutions must involve reforms tailored to the sector, supported by genuine political will.
Read more: The art of bribery: a closeup look at how traffic officers operate on Kenya's roads
The chief justice’s public acknowledgement of corruption within her own courts is a positive step. But she must take more radical actions. These include prosecuting and removing high court judges and other officials, establishing a system to compensate victims of court corruption, and actively engaging civil society groups.
Gedion Onyango receives funding from UKRI's CPAID project. He is also a senior research associate at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
