Rédaction Africa Links 24 with FELIX KIPKEMOI
Published on 2024-01-28 09:01:44
Public Service Cabinet Secretary Moses Kuria has come out to criticize the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) for its strong resistance to the proposed rollout of judicial services in Huduma centers. Kuria defended the move and argued that there was nothing wrong with the public using the centers to access these services. He also pointed out that the society had misinterpreted the independence of the Judiciary.
In a statement, Kuria posed the question to LSK, “What’s wrong with citizens using Huduma Centres to access Judiciary Services?” He emphasized that the government is committed to ensuring there is no discrimination in service delivery to all Kenyans. Furthermore, he expressed determination, alongside Chief Justice Martha Koome, to revolutionize access to Judiciary services through the Huduma innovation.
The Judiciary’s social media post stated that the rollout of the services would begin in Nairobi and Thika, starting with eight services, such as filing new civil cases, filing documents in existing cases, requesting and issuance of summons, and more. The notice also specified six Huduma Centres where these services would be available from January 29, 2024.
The Judiciary explained that it aims to utilize the success of Huduma centers, particularly the technology, to enhance access to justice for Kenyans. However, lawyers have protested the move, expressing concerns about potential ethical issues and the lack of sufficient consultation before implementation.
LSK President Theuri called for the initiative to be halted to allow for stakeholder consultation, expressing worries about the potential for abuse and increased unethical practices. Theuri also questioned the quick implementation of the plan at a time when there were concerns about the Judiciary being under the executive’s control.
Overall, the proposed rollout of judicial services in Huduma centers has sparked controversy, with the government pushing for the innovation while facing resistance and calls for more thorough consultation from the legal community.
