By Andrew Kariuki
A group of advocates practising before the Milimani Law Courts has petitioned Chief Justice Martha Koome to reconsider an administrative directive requiring transferred magistrates to immediately hand over all pending criminal matters, including part-heard and mature cases.
In a letter dated January 22, 2026, Sheria Mtaani na Shadrack Wambui, a registered public benefit organisation, formally raised concerns over the directive, warning that its blanket implementation could disrupt criminal trials and prejudice accused persons.
The organisation noted that following the recent reorganisation and transfer of magistrates from the Milimani Criminal Division, an administrative instruction was issued directing the affected judicial officers to cease handling all criminal files previously under their conduct, regardless of the stage reached.
According to the petitioners, the directive applies uniformly to cases at first mention, mid-trial, defence hearing and even those awaiting delivery of judgment, without distinction.
The advocates argue that criminal proceedings are uniquely vulnerable to disruption when taken over midstream, citing Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which recognises the potential prejudice arising when a succeeding magistrate assumes conduct of a trial.
They warned that the immediate handover of part-heard cases could result in recall of witnesses, rehearing of evidence, duplication of proceedings, and prolonged detention of accused persons, outcomes they say conflict with the constitutional right to a fair and expeditious trial under Article 50 of the Constitution.
The petition further raises concerns about institutional strain, noting that the remaining magistrates within the Criminal Division are now required to absorb a significant number of partly-heard and mature matters in addition to their existing caseloads, without corresponding reinforcement or reallocation of resources.
The advocates state that this has the practical effect of expanding existing backlogs, delaying justice for accused persons, victims and witnesses and placing additional pressure on court administration.
In their appeal to the Chief Justice, the petitioners emphasise that they do not challenge the constitutional authority of the Chief Justice to deploy and transfer judicial officers, but rather question the manner and effect of implementing the handover directive.
They have urged the adoption of a differentiated approach that would allow transferred magistrates, where practicable, to conclude substantially heard matters or deliver pending judgments before disengaging fully from the Criminal Division.
The petition is supported by a signed memorandum from advocates who practise regularly before the Milimani Criminal Courts, reflecting what the petitioners describe as widespread professional concern over the directive’s impact on the administration of criminal justice.
Copies of the petition were also addressed to the Presiding Judge of the Milimani Law Courts, the Presiding Judge of the Criminal Division, and the Chief Magistrate of Milimani.
The advocates expressed confidence that the Chief Justice would consider the concerns in the interest of judicial economy, fairness to litigants and public confidence in the criminal justice system.
