Sh15m is what it costs to bribe an Appeal Court judge
By ERIC SHIMOLI
A shocking tariff of corruption is revealed in the anti-graft report handed to the Chief Justice, with the cost of bribing an Appeal Court judge rising above Sh15 million.
High court judges will bend the law to suit you in return for Sh50,000 to Sh1.6 million, while magistrates take bribes of Sh4,000 to Sh150,000, according to sources familiar with the new report's details.
Corrupt magistrates also expect to share in any award made in civil cases; accident or injury claims for instance. Then they ask for 10 per cent to 30 per cent of the cash they have just awarded.
Almost anything the law demands is up for sale, the report reveals. It paints a picture of a Kenya in which the rule of law is in tatters.
Although the report is careful to state that only a minority of judges and magistrates are corrupt, it also states that defendants can be cleared of any crime, or if convicted by a judge who is not corrupt, the verdict can later be changed and the conviction quashed on appeal.
Sentences can be varied according to how much you are willing to pay, and even the most serious capital offences do not escape the stain of corruption.
It can cost anything from Sh40,000 to Sh1 million to be cleared of murder or robbery with violence � both capital offences � if the judge is corrupt.
And if the judge is open to a bribe, you can be cleared of other serious crimes that do not carry the death penalty, like manslaughter, rape, fraud, and firearms and drugs offences, by paying out between Sh20,000 to Sh500,000.
The more senior the judge the bigger the bribe, the report found.
A corrupt Appeal Court judge could earn more than Sh15 million for giving the verdict in your favour, while the High Court corruption tariff ranges from Sh50,000 to Sh1.6 million. A magistrate's verdict can be purchased for anything from Sh4,000 to Sh150,000, while a legal secretary will bend for as little as Sh500.
The report, by a committee led by former anti-corruption head Mr Justice Aaron Ringera, found that sometimes bribes were given for such simple tasks as preparation of documents such bail applications necessary for cases to proceed on time.
The sources said the report is a major indictment of the judiciary, detailing how favouritism, tribalism and nepotism influence recruitment of undeserving staff, and the contribution of poor pay, to the rampant corruption in the judiciary.
The Integrity and Anti-Corruption Committee which carried out the investigations, reported that there was credible evidence to link five Appeal Court judges, 18 High Court judges and 82 magistrates to corruption.
More than half the judges were implicated in corruption while 32 per cent of magistrates were cited as bribe takers.
Their alleged crimes included involvement in bribery, being induced with sex and gifts of land, goats, supply of building materials, supply of fuel, fund-raising (harambee) contributions, personal entertainment and hospitality.
The committee presented two reports to Chief Justice Evan Gicheru on Tuesday, one detailing the extent and manner of bribe taking, and the other naming the offending officers.
The report stated the corruption also involved failing to account for money received from litigants, the manipulation of official receipts so that the amount shown on the duplicate receipts kept by the courts is less than that paid, theft of exhibits and government stores such as furniture and cash bail money for released suspects, which is paid but never receipted.
Judicial staff also offer suspects advice, manipulate evidence and doctor records.
There is also manipulation and doctoring of evidence, and judges, magistrates and other staff acquire land or a percentage of what is awarded, the sources said.
Judges and magistrates also seek employment for relatives from litigants.
Other forms of corruption include purchase of bonded goods at less than market value, conducting business without valid licences, using prison labour for private work, accepting per diem payments for work not done.
Poor remuneration, bad deployment and transfer, delays in hearing and determining cases, poor or no supervision, and retention of officers after their retirement age were cited as some of the causes of corruption in the Judiciary.
Others were poor terms of pay for magistrates, overstaying by officers in one station and the deliberate delaying of cases to force the need for a bribe to break the deadlock.
Poor supervision was cited as one reason for the decay in the judiciary, the committee concluded.
Want to chat instantly with your online friends?�Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger
