Prime Minister Raila
Odinga and Justice Minister Martha
Karua insist that judges and magistrates should sign
performance contracts whereas the Chief Justice Evans Gicheru
and other senior members of the bench contend that such a move will undermine
judicial independence in Kenya.
The spirited opposition to performance contracting by the
Chief Justice and his colleagues displays a lack of conceptual understanding of
the process. A performance contract is basically an agreement involving the
government and a state entity which outlines the broad objectives for that
entity, lays down goals for quantifying productivity, and offers incentives for
accomplishing these targets. Judicial independence is a legal dictum; it warrants
that the decisions of the judiciary are impartial and exempt from manipulation by the other arms of government or by private and political
interests.
Judicial independence hinges on the security of tenure
of service; it enables judicial officers to exercise unfettered discretionwithin the law in
determining cases and resolving disputes. In Kenya, this independence is
guaranteed by the Constitution which gives judges of the High Court and the
Court of Appeal security of tenure and confers the Judicial Service Commission
with the mandate of superintending the affairs of the judiciary. Even with
this autonomy, judges are still required by law to exercise their discretion
reasonably, adhere to certain rules, and proclaim judgements that reflect
fidelity to the law. Besides, not every judicial officer is involved in the
hearing and determination of cases. Some are fully engaged in the management of
the administrative and clerical wing of the department.
The Kenyan judiciary has stood still for decades and failed
to reform and embrace modernity.The
judicial process and the criminal justice system are still highly steeped in
backward procedural practices which hurt and deny poor or unrepresented
litigants access to substantive justice. Inadequate staff and lack of financial
resources have often been cited as the reasons for the incessant delays in
determining legal disputes and disposing of cases. Laxity, ineptitude, and lack
of integrity play a significant role too. This is the main reason why the
judiciary ought to embrace performance contracting. International best practice
shows that governments and global agencies are currently implementing
performance contracting to enhance performance of civil servants and entrench good
governance and accountability. Goal-setting is an important evaluation tool for
determining resource allocation and assessing skill gaps in an organisation.
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) should set down the
mission of the judiciary, and the broad objectives and the strategies necessary for achieving that mission. It is upon these broad objectives that judges and magistrates will
set their key result areas (KRAs) and key performance indicators (KPIs) upon
which they will be evaluated. The initial goals and targets for each individual
officer can be set on the basis of historical data regarding past performance.
The KRAs and KPIs can be structured in relation to integrity, training, sitting
hours, number of cases to be heard and determined by each officer, the number
of judgements and rulings delivered and timely resolution of administrative
issues. This can easily be done without fettering the discretion of judges and
magistrates to determine cases on their own merits. Since judicial officers
will set the criteria for their own appraisal by peers, it is difficult to
discern how performance contracting will interfere with the exercise of
judicial discretion. Judicial independence should not be used as an excuse for
inefficiency and ineptitude.
___________________
Capt. Collins Wanderi Munyiri
About the author:
Captain (Rtd) Collins Wanderi is a Nairobi Advocate, Certified Public Secretary, Certified Fraud Examiner, Commissioner for Oaths, & Notary Public. He writes regularly on Kenyan affairs.
I understand that Wanderi always wants to agree with Raila, it is part of the wave I am seeing in Central Province more and more, a respect for violence and thuggery. The Gikuyu are making a good name for themselves, hit us hard enough and we will love you.
However, can Wanderi tell us exactly what parameters will be employed in this performance evaluation? Are there countries where these contracts or similar measures have been put in place, and this without affecting the independence of the Judiciary?
A general rule still seems to prevail, when Raila or one of his lot say something, it is more likely than not to be utter foolishness. Let us now wait for more grown-up solutions to the very real and pressing problems with our justice system. Martha Karua and the Nation (what an idiotic edtorial) shame on you.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
... written by Captain , August 22, 2008
Jambo Wainaina, I do not necessarily have to agree with Hon. Raila Odinga on anything, no , I have a mind of my own and the temerity to put my ideas down in writing. I have sad it before, Hon. Martha Karua is one of my heroines. I do not support thuggery and or violence, I did the ropes and served my time in the Armed Forces, I know better than you the repurcussions of war. Hon. Raila is a Kenyan citizen and the last time I checked he is the Prime Minister of the Republic of Kenya; a key player in the executive arm of government. You are aking about parameters for evaluating judges and magistrates. Here you go, People(human resources, staffing, training, etc) Internal Processes(accounting for expenditure, response to audit queries, adherence to internal standards, integrity, speedy resolution of administrative issues etc), Customer(litigants, parties to suits, speedy determination of cases, urgent applications, etc) and Fidelity to the Law(compliance with constitutional & statutory requirements are the thematic areas for evaluating judicial officers.
On this subject, I have the advantage of speaking from a point of knowledge and experience. As an advocate, I know the frustrations people go through due to the laxity and ineptitude of judges and Magistrates. Having successfully prosecuted numerous cases before the Court Martial, I know the difference between them and ordinary courts.
And yes, performance contracting is now a basic tool of management for judicial & quasi-judicial officers in many parts of the world, please do a bit of reading!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
... written by manta ray , August 22, 2008
Why don't MPs, starting with Raila and Karua in their capacities as MPs in their own right, also sign performance contracts with yearly targets for their respective constituencies to be met, otherwise they also agree to go home? It is true the Judiciary needs serious reform, but as the Chief Justice insists, one arm of the Govt should not be setting parameters or shouting at another arm to do this or that without consultation. It seems to me that what Raila and Karua are doing is to disrespect the authority and absolute independence of the Judiciary in rushing to the press to make pronouncements without adequate consultation. The impression created is that the Executive as represented by Raila is somewhat superior to other arms and does not know the limits of its supervisory jurisdiction, precisely the opposite of his posturing as an accountability merchant. People really need to think through and seek to discern the deeper implications of the Bondo Bumpkin's activities and pronouncements, most especially because of his political background, history and style. What you see IS NOT necessarily what you will get.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
be more specific written by ezz , August 22, 2008
...,performance contracting is now a basic tool of management for judicial & quasi-judicial officers in many parts of the world,...
Which parts of the world?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Results-Based management in every organisation is necessary written by pndiangui , August 22, 2008
I really don't see the problem as to whether the Judiciary should go for perfomance-contracting. In assence as I have said it before in these papers that the greatest innovation in governance that the Kibaki regime may claim an honour for its 10 years if it lasts is bringing on board Results-based mangement within all government arms. It is a key change management tool to enable a shift in behaviours of civil servants which is part of creating the accountability environment and quality of service. Infact one of the things that 'governance innovation' presents is that the costs of adoption are not high since we don't alot of unionised civil servants that can resist these tools as it has happened elsewhere. However I agree that the introduction of performance-contracting in the Judiciary need to be thought out to make sure it doesnt undermine it's independence. With that I would think we need to take a closer look of the role of the Judiciary and how its contribution to the well being of Kenyans is determined. Who does the CJ report to ? What are the ojectives of his office ? How can we measure whether the objectives of his office are being met in regards to very fundamental idea of why the role actually exists. Then we can move top-down from there to cascade the objectives and goals of the Kenyan Judiciary down to performance and rewards of the top judge down to the administrative secretary. And this should then be a personal charter along which individual career goals are based upon , so that you only have results-oriented competent individuals being promoted.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
Judges should sign the performance contracts written by Peter Njenga , August 24, 2008
The good book says that that the guilty are afraid. What are these judges so afraid of anyway? In fact, they should be among the first persons to sign performance contracts, given that the judiciary seeks to ensure that what is both right and just is done. I wonder why they are so opposed to this proposal.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
leave judges be written by Stephen Wanyama , August 24, 2008
It all depends on what we mean by performance contracts. I am sure that if we are talking about ensuring that Justice Gicheru puts in a full day's work instead of coming in at 11 am and leaving at 3 pm, then there will be no opposition.
Also, a lot of what our esteemed Captain proposes is administrative work, and I am sure no one in their right mind would oppose that, after al, any citizen of our country may one day be caught up in a situation where he or his loved ones suffer the pain of our terrible judiciary system.
The protestations of the Judges however seem aimed not at this sort of performance contracting (which I think no one would oppose), but rather the attempt to benchmark judges -which even sunny side up- still reads as interference to me. Indeed the very notion in a judge's mind, that there is an excuse rather than committing a crime, or being incapable of performing his duties that would lead to his being ou of a job, inteferes with his performance of his duties.
There is very good reason for having judges enjoy security of tenure. Let us not pretend we skipped that class. Stenographers, computerisation, translators, a more efficient investigation, police and remand system. Let's also think about these things as we insist that judges behave better.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
performance contracting & judicial independence written by Ngigi wa Kamau , August 25, 2008
Unfortunately for Kenya, we collectively seem to ride waves of fashionable ideas without examining the content. Such has been the case with arguments for devolution, majimboism, and now Performance Contracting.
A significant proportion of this collective hysteria is due, in part, to our media's deference to the holy ODM Messiah - proponent of all that is just & true & right. In fact, Right is now part of his name.
However, another more insidious cause is collective ignorance.
Talk of public performance management is wholesome only if we define how exactly we will measure the output of public officials. Recent trends, as part of the New Public Management (NPM) waves, prefer to view citizens as consumers of government services. This view derives from the neo-liberal origins of the NPM movement. Thus, government is equated with a market player providing services on a user-pays basis.
Thus, for example, we can judge the efficiency of a hospital by the number of patients served daily, length of queue, revenue generated per day et cetera.
Similarly, if we conceive the prosecutors and respondents/defendants as customers of the justice system, the ideas of performance management would have us examine things like length of time taken to determine a matter, number of convictions/acquittals (AG & Police),number of cases determined by individual judges/magistrates etc.
However, in our debate, no one is specifying what exactly they mean by good performance (There is an implicit premise that judicial performance is wanting).
Worse still, the Messiah - being the fellow apparently tasked with overseeing performance of state - seeks to bind the judiciary into a agreement with his office stipulating what must be done. After all, a contract is an agreement between two parties. IF the judiciary is to sign a contract, it cannot contract with itself. It will be contracting with the executive. This means that the Judiciary would be subject to the control of the executive.
Any lawyer upholding legality will know that this is unconstitutional and a significant affront to judicial independence. Thus, the Chief Justice's comments regarding the unconstitutionality of performance contracting insofar as it relates to the judiciary were correct. He further charitably advised anyone seeking to introduce PC to first alter the constitution.
The only thing I need to note is that performance management is an art not a science. Human being adapt to incentives and innovate where the rules are unfavourable.
Thus Performance Contracting especially in the public sector generates perverse incentives. In the example of the hospital above, clerks & nurses under pressure to see many patients and/or reduce queue lengths can:
1. Turn away patients from public hospitals (thus reducing queue length) 2.Not devote enough time to interviews & diagnoses - hence "seeing" more patients per day but providing rubbish health care 3. Increase the cost of public health care (thus turning away poor people) etc.
The judiciary could:
1. Convict as many suspects as are presented ( ignore due process/fair trial etc) 2. Dispense with requirements for representation at murder trials 3. DEclare many issues of public interest non-justiciable 4. Increase the cost of access to reduce demand for judicial services
Summary: Government is not a business entity. Issues of fairness, equity etc apply and non-customers have an interest in how government service users are treated.
The focus should be on generating Public Value - not increasing relatively efficiency for narrowly defined efficiency's sake.
Ngigi
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Those wigs, those wigs. written by mkosakabila , August 27, 2008
After seeing the white/gray wig on the front page, I felt driven to make a posting, not because I have any particular liking for the wigs worn by our learned friends, (I think they’re unnecessary and unbecoming) but rather the gravity of the conversation was driven home. No kidding.
The postings on KI have to be commended. They are careful and nicely articulate, from multiple perspectives, the dilemmas we face when we try to introduce performance contracting for our judicial system. I support the Rt Hon Prime Minister and Hon Constitutional Minister on this, as a matter of principle, but I also believe that any such system will have to have a monitoring and enforcement component that guards against Ngigi’s perverse incentives, moral hazards, but also an accountability system that does not undermine the fundamentals of independence and integrity.
My sense is that independence is a behavioral sub-outcome, and effectiveness a final desired outcome which is bound by the appropriateness of the process from which it is so derived. Following Ngigi’s post above, what we need is a set of rewards and penalties that can lead to effectiveness while retaining independence. Performance contracting is a necessary condition, likely not the only one, towards that goal.
How can we measure the quality of outcomes? I would want to fall back on what I consider to be the roles and responsibilities of our judiciary: To protect/defend my constitutional rights and freedoms, to ensure that I am fairly treated under the law and to guarantee me equal justice regardless of my position, wealth, gender, race, religion etc. How effectively they perform these duties would form the basis of my evaluation, and for which I would want objective indicators and criteria developed. However, as pointed out by Wanyama, actors’ roles in the judicial system vary and criteria need to be relevant to specific tasks.
But there is the danger that the evaluation process can degenerate into an exercise in victimization. I would suggest that the evaluators consult a broad range of actors that interact, professionally, with the member being evaluated and that these consultations be anonymous and that the one being evaluated is also consulted and interviewed. The evaluations and consultations should focus on professional skills and the handling of cases, but also on the overall conduct of the individual in the courtroom. Now, I personally think that such a process of evaluation can be greatly boosted by placing in the public realm information on the judges’ rulings and decisions. We may already have something of this sort going on as I do remember pulling up several case rulings off of the internet a couple of months ago. While there is a case for somewhat insulating the judicial system, I see no harm in making transparent to the public the details and reasoning of the rulings. An informed and well organized civil society, media, can serve a monitoring function as well.
The question of independence is separate but related. One would imagine a merit-based selection of judges, from a pool of practicing lawyers, by an independent, non-partisan team comprising peers and non-peers, that in turn has the authority to make recommendations when an individual makes decisions that are contrary to her/his duties and who does not follow process as demanded by the law. The good captain somewhere mentioned a Judicial Commission. I am interested to be educated on the constitution and function of that commission. I have not mentioned security of tenure because I really don’t understand what purpose it serves. Independence??? Let’s not overlook the strong possibility (if not reality) of judges who have had tenure security, and strong salary incentives, but still not acted independently. I will not name names, suffice to say that tenure security is no panacea for independence.
Overall, judicial performance is a very broad and complex concept, that covers a broad range of actors and actions, of which independence and effectiveness are important, yet one may also think of accessibility, etc. I’m afraid I’ve danced around a couple of issues (thanks to multi-tasking—anyone read the “Myth of multitasking”?), which IMVHO are basic to an effective and independent judiciary that can curb excesses of the executive and of private interests, enforce equality, and so on.
In the end, what we need is to build public confidence and trust in an institution that is foundational in our shared lives. Performance contracting is not a bad thing and should not be feared. It is one out of a bunch of complementary ways, including the provision of information on reasonings and rulings, of structuring incentives in the judiciary. We of course must take great care in its implementation.
Thanks for the fantastic nuanced thoughts. However:
My sense is that independence is a behavioral sub-outcome, and effectiveness a final desired outcome which is bound by the appropriateness of the process from which it is so derived.
it ought not be said that judicial independence is a sub-outcome of judicial processes. The underlying basis for having a judiciary is to protect the weak from those who would abuse power - whether it is political, financial, pseudo-moral (think NGOs) et cetera.
If the judiciary were controlled even remotely by the executive, it would mean that those entrusted with employing coercive powers to achieve the public good could restrict the fetters placed on them by either dismissing judges with spine, threatening their positions, undermining their pay...and any other means imagination can conjure.
This would weaken confidence in the judiciary as a source of unbiased decisions. Without confidence, there is no expectation of justice. Without expectations of justice, it is a quick ride into anarchy & mob rule.
A prescient example is the nature of mob justice in Kenya. If people lose confidence in the system, they take it upon themselves to dispense "justice". In such a world, there is no protection for the innocent, no sense of proportionality, and really no justice!
Judicial independence thus ought to precede efficiency to guarantee justice - the rationale for the Judiciary's existence. Nevertheless, judicial independence without efficiency is in itself, injustice.
Nuance is key to address the moral hazards & perverse incentives.
Ngigi
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Ngigi wa Kamau written by mkosakabila , August 29, 2008
it ought not be said that judicial independence is a sub-outcome of judicial processes.
I'm afraid I didnt mean that--apologies for my lack of clarity, good you called it out. My sense is that independence is in itself an outcome of the overall (institutional) environment in which the judiciary is embedded--and you've given good examples eg controls by the executive, in whatever way.
ps: n where did Guest go anyway??
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
... written by Stephen Wanyama , August 29, 2008
Peter Ndiangui asks
Who does the CJ report to? What are the objectives of is office.
This perhaps is the whole point. The CJ ought really to report to no one BUT the Kenyan Constitution, or in a restricted sense, the public good as represented by the Constitution. The objectives of his office ought to be to ensure a properly run judiciary, with all that this means. He must not ever be partisan, not even to the will of the Kenyan people. As Gicheru is at pains to point out, you check the Judiciary by changing the law. This is our system of checks and balances!
Peter Njenga asks
What are the judges afraid of?
Pakistan anyone? It may seem unpalatable at the moment, but the pain of having to do with a judiciary accountable to Bumpkins and Kitchen Cabinets is not something anyone should wish on us.
wa Kamau writes
Worse still, the Messiah - being the fellow apparently tasked with overseeing performance of state - seeks to bind the judiciary into a agreement with his office stipulating what must be done. After all, a contract is an agreement between two parties. IF the judiciary is to sign a contract, it cannot contract with itself. It will be contracting with the executive. This means that the Judiciary would be subject to the control of the executive.
This for me is along with mkosakabila below the comment of the thread. I would also go so far as to say that all contracts hav penalties, there must be some pain. Are we suggesting then that we will be dismissing judges for not reaching some pass mark? Or is this an entirely cosmetic facility?
Mkosakabila writes
But there is the danger that the evaluation process can degenerate into an exercise in victimization. I would suggest that the evaluators consult a broad range of actors that interact, professionally, with the member being evaluated and that these consultations be anonymous and that the one being evaluated is also consulted and interviewed. The evaluations and consultations should focus on professional skills and the handling of cases, but also on the overall conduct of the individual in the courtroom. Now, I personally think that such a process of evaluation can be greatly boosted by placing in the public realm information on the judges’ rulings and decisions.
I am convinced that the entirety of mkosakabila's post, but especially the paragraph I have chosen is a declaration for exactly why this proposal is so dangerous. We have no culture of accountability, we are tribalists, bullies and generally uncivilised. How can we hope that such a system would work in any way but to the benefit of power realities?
P.S. Most idiotic statement of the week. The Speaker of Parliament tells the judiciary to be careful lest public opinion goes against them! Really? Gathara's Cartoon Project Tame is particularly compelling now. In a society as backward and vicious as ours, one can only tremble at the spectre of judges playing to the gallery. Why not just start electing them then?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
huh? written by mkosakabila , August 29, 2008
I am convinced that the entirety of mkosakabila's post, but especially the paragraph I have chosen is a declaration for exactly why this proposal is so dangerous. We have no culture of accountability, we are tribalists, bullies and generally uncivilised. How can we hope that such a system would work in any way but to the benefit of power realities?
Wanyama: I would respond to your rather unhelpful post above (believe me--there's a LOT I could say) if you would but indulge me with just one thing: an alternative suggestion on how to improve a decaying system sensu the good captain’s article. You have objected to performance contracting just as you have denied electing judges, the latter of which I'm in agreement. Lay your alternative(s) on the table and let's discuss them, without which your refutation risks simple categorization as arrogant and mean-spirited.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
general accountability written by Ngigi wa Kamau , August 30, 2008
Is it overly presumptuous to assume that Donald Kipkorir first took a peek at KI before penning his piece in today's Daily Nation? If yes, then salvation can also come to defenders of all things Messianic.
@MK,
You said that:
My sense is that independence is in itself an outcome of the overall (institutional) environment in which the judiciary is embedded
& that;
The evaluations and consultations should focus on professional skills and the handling of cases, but also on the overall conduct of the individual in the courtroom. Now, I personally think that such a process of evaluation can be greatly boosted by placing in the public realm information on the judges’ rulings and decisions.
I agree, Independence is certainly an outcome of constitutional architecture - hence institutional environment. However, at the design stage, that independence must precede the workings of the judicial system and is checked ( re accountability) by the requirement to publish decisions and the reasoning behind them.
Fortunately, if judges are unwilling to publish their ratio decidendi, an Act of Parliament could require such publication without infringing on the Constitution & judicial independence. In this regard, I think the return of the Kenya Law Reports in one the Chief Justice's greatest accomplishments because crucial reasoning & decisions are available to the public at no cost at www.kenyalaw.org.
The challenge is to ensure that all public decisions be they by courts of law, administrative tribunals, public corporations (think tendering) are available to interested parties. Perhaps they can be sorted by province and have unique websites devoted to them. The era of public institutions adding the rider that body X is not obliged to provide reasons for its decisions should be long gone.
In fact, accountability should not be about responding to the demands of other arms of government - it should be about ensuring as much probity as possible to remove any doubts/innuendo that may linger in the public conscience as to the fairness of public processes.
In this regard, and much as I admire her intellect, I disagree with Martha Karua.
Ngigi
PS: Anyone note that in the recently published Constitution review bill, a referendum would only need 25% of votes cast in at least 4 provinces to pass? Even if most people hate it, it would still pass - Martha is being fishy.
... written by Stephen Wanyama , September 10, 2008
I have read few worse articles on the subject.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
StevO! written by Daniel.Waweru , September 10, 2008
I'm going to have to agree with Wanyama - regretfully, it must be said. The article is egregiously bad: first-year-law-student late-night drivel expressed in management speak. Yuck.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
... written by Ngigi wa Kamau , September 10, 2008
I fear anyone who ever engages Sunguti to "consult" for them.
Reminds me of those primary school essays that started along the lines of: Performance contracting is good because....
Shame the fellow uses fancy terminology yet remains clueless about what he is talking about. Gicheru misdirecting himself? I don't think so.
Ngigi
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
... written by mkosakabila , September 10, 2008
Guys! Guys! Stop the drivel yourselves, including the rather personlized ones. The fellow gives his management take and argues from a public administration, service delivery lens. What's wrong with that? Not every one working in the judiciary is a judge terrified of losing the increasingly elusive independence. Why do I get that eerie feeling that Justice Gicheru himself should be the last one to harp on and on about independence? I even find the fellow's parting shot quite delightful--the one about striking without goal posts. Nice!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
.........frothing at the mouth written by Ngigi wa Kamau , September 10, 2008
MK,
Was actually frothing at the mouth.
It is now Government policy to improve service delivery in all its departments, the Judiciary included.
A dishonest statement that mischaracterises what is happening in Kenya. Sunguti equivocates between the two meanings of government - the first being the State proper(monopoly of force including the authoriser, arbiter, and implenter of coercion), and the second meaning referring to the Executive arm. The state has no policy except that framed from time to time by the Executive. However, in this latter sense, the limits of Executive policy will be limited by legislative compliance or judicial disapproval. Hence the notion of rule of law. Performance contracting is an executive arm of government policy. I will not even go into whether it is always appropriate to sign performance contracts.
INDEED, IT [PC] IS AN INTERNAL TOOL that sets performance targets and criteria of appraisal or evaluation within the employment laws. It emphasises operations or performance that goes towards customer satisfaction.
As I noted earlier, customer satisfaction is not always the best measure of government performance and sometimes is not the public objective. How does the judiciary ensure that a convicted criminal is satisfied with imprisonment? How do police ensure that rioters are satisfied customers of their services?
The public service, like private business, is now taking a more business like approach that takes cognisance of customer care, service and satisfaction in creating loyalty
Loyalty as government objective? What are the competing options - moving to Tanzania or elsewhere as an alien? Equating public service & private corporations is being very naive.
The chief justice has misdirected himself in believing performance contracts mean employment contracts.
If performance contracts do not govern the employment relationship, what do they govern?
Performance contracts guarantee data collection, record keeping and improves reporting
They do neither...they may mandate all the above but cannot guarantee either. The authorities may be unwilling to follow up on failures. The case of the Efficiency Monitoring Unit best illustrates this...KACC is perhaps more, albeit indirectly, prescient.
The CJ should come to terms with the fact that the public does not expect that efficient services will come from the Judiciary naturally.
Perhaps the Messiah's supernatural insistence will alter the public's perception?
The public demands and rightly so for fast, fair and just decisions.
Love it when writers speak in the name of the people...However, which people demand judicial performance contracting except the ODM Messiah in his zeal to be seen as a reformist?
The CJ, being the CEO of the Judiciary, should support the initiative to appraise his department using a modern management appraisal tool.
Who does the appraisal? What are the metrics? Performance contracting is not as modern as Sunguti would have it - it is over 30 years old given its neo-liberal origins. What is modern is Public Value Management.
Rejecting use of PCs is like rejecting the erection of goal posts on a football pitch. You cannot blame the strikers for misfiring.
Apart from the fact that BB has inspired in me an avid dislike of all football analogies, the false utopia of perfect government caused by performance contracting deserves contempt.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
winner written by Daniel.Waweru , September 10, 2008
And....Ngigi wins the thread.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
... written by mkosakabila , September 10, 2008
Not so fast.
There will never be a last word on this until the Bondo Bumpkin sings.
I'm not sure Ngigi has said anything here that is orgasmic, really, to deserve the creepy Waweru award.
And the only two things that might warrant some discussion include--who will conduct the appraisal and what metrics? These dont sound like terribly difficult things to do; and I may have alluded to the former somewhere up there in an earlier post. Sunguti alluded to the latter. Those are somewhat technical things mechanics of which legal peers as well as public administrators can design and agree together. That worries me the least. What I find quite exercising is the commitment to set aside resources necessary to conduct and sustain the appraisals,regularly, to do that fairly and to impliment a system of rewards or otherwise.
I do not see why Ngigi scoffs at Sunguti's mention of the public, which sounds quite reasonable to me. The good captain above laid out good reasons why anyone, including Emilio, should be very worried about the delivery of justice in this country. I suggest you go back and re-read them. I personally can attest to the delays, the costs, the bribery, the fraud, involved in a good number of cases I have been studying for the past seven years, some of which have been under contestation for close to two decades. Most of the people involved have rather damaging things to say. If that doesnt convince, then we can sweetalk the Gallup people to adding a relevant query on this??
Soooo, dont froth at the mouth lest we all mistake it for an epileptic fit, brain dysfunction of which we cannot fix, but certainly can do the least to keep you from swallowing your tongue.
This is not the last word....till the BB...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@MK intellectual foreplay - yaani ni kionjo tu written by Ngigi wa Kamau , September 11, 2008
MK,
... the only two things that might warrant some discussion include--who will conduct the appraisal and what metrics? These dont sound like terribly difficult things to do;...Those are somewhat technical things mechanics of which legal peers as well as public administrators can design and agree together.
My general argument has been, and I think I stated my case lucidly, that performance contracting as is being proposed would erode judicial independence. I have demonstrated that contracts involve two parties, that one cannot contract with self, and it is bleeding obvious that the PM wants to bind the judiciary thus eroding its independence. As such, even if BB won't personally appraise the judiciary, an executive agency will be able to impose sanction on the judiciary.
As for metrics, if in our public discourse no one is talking about the difficulty (or maybe impossibility) of defining exactly what is being measured, how will the public ever tell whether they are getting value for money (taxes) and justice (the collective objective).
Suggesting that lawyers & public administrators ( a deferral to experts) can finesse the process masks a deeper problem - the condescending attitude employed by powerful people that pressupposes citizens are too daft to understand social issues & public policy problems.
I presently stand in Wanjiku's shoes. Don't tell me an expert has the answer when you cannot show it to me - especially after I ask probing questions.
If Captain, a lawyer has not offered any solutions, yet, BB is not our best hope.
Rgds,
Ngigi
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
... written by manta ray , September 25, 2008
Who appraises the BB`s performance? Has he signed a performance contract and is it in the public domain for evaluation? Or do we have to wait for the freedom of information act in order to peruse it?
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
However, can Wanderi tell us exactly what parameters will be employed in this performance evaluation? Are there countries where these contracts or similar measures have been put in place, and this without affecting the independence of the Judiciary?
A general rule still seems to prevail, when Raila or one of his lot say something, it is more likely than not to be utter foolishness. Let us now wait for more grown-up solutions to the very real and pressing problems with our justice system. Martha Karua and the Nation (what an idiotic edtorial) shame on you.