Populist, generalised attacks slow down judicial reform

“The life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience.” — Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

The Kenyan judiciary occupies a paradoxical position. It is at once a pillar of democracy and a frequent target of public distrust. Like any institution, it bears undeniable societal flaws as corruption scandals, both perceived and real, inefficiencies, persistent backlogs of cases, and occasional decisions that raise questions about impartiality. These shortcomings are real, serious, and demand reform. A trend has emerged in recent years, the weaponisation of populism in critiquing the Judiciary. Instead of reasoned, evidence-driven discourse, political and social actors increasingly rely on emotionally charged rhetoric and social media disinformation to delegitimise courts. In doing so, they derail authentic calls for accountability, leaving the Judiciary both weakened and misunderstood.

It is essential to begin with a candid admission; the Judiciary has had moments where its conduct warranted objective criticism. Reports from the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission and civil society organisations have pointed to bribery within court corridors. Citizens have repeatedly voiced frustration at justice delayed, where cases languish in courts for years, sometimes decades. These are facts, and they underscore why accountability remains a non-negotiable element of judicial legitimacy. But genuine reform cannot sprout from populism.

Populist attacks, typically characterised by sweeping generalisations like “the Judiciary is irredeemably corrupt” or “judges are enemies of the people” often ignore nuance and collapse complex realities into simplistic slogans. Such rhetoric thrives on anger rather than analysis, trading evidence for emotion. In Kenya’s volatile political climate, populist figures have found in the Judiciary a convenient scapegoat, when decisions do not favour their agenda, they discredit the courts wholesale, painting them as obstacles to “the will of the people.”

By reducing all judicial critique to partisan talking points, populism erodes public confidence in the institution without offering substantive pathways for reform. It creates a fog where genuine concerns about corruption or inefficiency are lost amid political theatrics. The rise of social media has intensified this dynamic, transforming what might once have been isolated political rhetoric into viral narratives. In this environment, populist critiques gain exponential force. Once such narratives take hold, they are extraordinarily difficult to dispel, regardless of contrary evidence.

This cycle of disinformation has two pernicious effects. First, it entrenches cynicism. Citizens grow to distrust the Judiciary not on the basis of proven misconduct but because repeated online claims have made scepticism fashionable. Second, it weakens reformist voices. Civil society organisations and well-meaning citizens who raise well-documented concerns about judicial integrity find their arguments drowned out by the sheer noise of populist attacks.

The greatest casualty of populist attacks on the Judiciary is reform itself. Real accountability requires careful diagnosis of problems, supported by credible data, and pursued through structured mechanisms, whether institutional audits, parliamentary oversight, or robust investigative journalism. Populism, however, thrives on instant gratification. Its logic is not to build but to tear down. This creates a paradox. While citizens may feel emboldened by populist critiques, the Judiciary becomes defensive rather than reflective. Faced with constant vilification, judges are less likely to engage openly with criticism, fearing that any admission of flaws will be weaponised against them. Instead of proactive reform, we get institutional paralysis, the Judiciary hunkers down, issuing statements of self-defence rather than meaningful blueprints for change.

For Kenya to escape this cycle, the Judiciary must embrace mechanisms that both respect legitimate public outcry and insulate itself from populist distortion. Several strategies can be employed. First, the Judiciary should adopt a proactive communication strategy. Court decisions, especially on contentious political cases, must be accompanied by plain-language summaries that explain legal reasoning to the public. This reduces the vacuum in which misinformation thrives.

Secondly, rather than allowing social media to be dominated by disinformation, the Judiciary can create verified, interactive platforms where citizens can raise concerns, track case progress, and access factual updates. The Judiciary has done a bit of this via the social media channels. By meeting citizens where they are online, the Judiciary seizes back the narrative. Thirdly, judicial officers accused of misconduct must face swift, fair, and transparent disciplinary proceedings by the Judicial Service Commission. High-profile cases of judicial corruption should not be handled quietly. Timelines should be short and the proceedings availed to the complainants in the spirit of Article 35 of the Constitution.

Fourthly, collaborating with universities, civil society, and the media, the Judiciary can promote public understanding of how courts work. A more informed citizenry is less susceptible to populist oversimplifications. Fifthly, the Judiciary through the Judicial Service Commission should institutionalise town halls and stakeholder dialogues across counties. These forums allow for structured airing of grievances, creating space for accountability while filtering out performative attacks.

The Judiciary is imperfect, but imperfection does not justify indiscriminate populist vilification. The fight for accountability cannot be waged through hashtags, slogans, or disinformation. It requires evidence, patience, and structural reform. Populism may offer the thrill of righteous anger, but it derails the sober, methodical work needed to strengthen justice. Ultimately, the Judiciary’s resilience will depend on its ability to distinguish between noise and legitimate critique. By embracing transparency, accountability, and public engagement, it can transform criticism from a threat into an opportunity. The task is urgent, if populism continues to dominate the discourse, Kenya risks eroding faith in its courts, leaving democracy itself on unstable ground.