Kenya's judiciary transformation: Addressing the 'dress and address' of legal institutions

In 2012, Kenya's first Chief Justice under the 2010 Constitution, Willy Mutunga, launched a significant initiative to reform the nation's legal institutions. Mutunga, a former president of the Law Society of Kenya with a doctorate in law, brought a unique perspective to the role, shaped by his experiences as a political detainee and exile, and his work in philanthropy.

“

The division between the two professions was well recognised by the end of the 16th century and by the end of the 17th was quite firm….While the solicitor spends much of his time trying to keep his clients out of court, there inevitably comes a time when he needs the services of what the Americans call ‘the trial lawyer’. In England, this is the barrister….

His tenure began with a mandate to re-fashion Kenya's discredited legal system. The Judiciary Transformation Framework, launched on May 31, 2012, was a four-year plan designed to infuse the judiciary with the spirit of the new constitution. The framework diagnosed the system as "antediluvian," out of touch with the public, and resistant to change. It highlighted institutions with a "founding history of dominance, power, prestige and remoteness, as opposed to service and equality."

“

founding history of dominance, power, prestige and remoteness, as opposed to service and equality.

The document further stated that the legal system's architecture, rules, and even dress code had "uprooted it from social reality," leading to public perception of it as both "alien and insensitive." A key focus of the transformation was the "dress and address" of legal and judicial figures, acknowledging that the allure of these aspects often draws individuals to the profession. The original rationales for these practices included a "theatrical aspect" to impress laypeople and provide the profession with "a useful anonymity and conformity."

“

architecture, rules, dress code and other rituals have uprooted it from social reality.

This initiative represented a significant effort to bridge the gap between the judiciary and the citizens it serves, aiming to create a legal system that was more accessible, responsive, and aligned with the principles of the new constitution. The process was notably consultative, involving a wide range of stakeholders including magistrates, judges, judicial workers, the public, political leaders, and the media.

“

alien and insensitive.