A fierce debate has erupted within legal circles over the practice of judicial officers hiding behind the veil of anonymity, with transparency advocates arguing that "faceless justice is no justice at all."

The controversy stems from recent cases where magistrates have issued controversial rulings while shielding their identities from the public record, often citing security concerns. While the safety of judges is paramount, critics argue that this privilege is being abused to evade accountability for questionable judgments.

Accountability vs. Security

In a democracy, the power of the court flows from the people. When a judge sends a citizen to jail or freezes their assets, they must own that decision. Anonymity breeds a culture of impunity, where judicial officers can act as mercenaries for the executive or wealthy cartels without fear of public scrutiny.

• The Precedent: In mature democracies, even Supreme Court justices are public figures whose records are scrutinized. In Kenya, the retreat into secrecy signals a regression to the dark days of the single-party era.
• The Risk: If the public cannot name the judge, they cannot petition the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) for their removal in cases of misconduct.
• The Solution: The JSC must invest in actual physical security for officers—bodyguards and secure housing—rather than offering them the cloak of invisibility.

The Verdict

Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done—by a specific person, with a name and a face. Anything less is a star chamber.