On 4 December 2025, I attended the Financial Reporting (FiRe) Awards ceremony in Nairobi, where the Judicial Service Commission was recognised as the overall winner in the category of Constitutional Commissions and Independent Offices under the International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) – Cash Basis.
The evening was celebratory, competitive, and well earned. But beyond the applause, the moment provoked a deeper reflection: If excellence in financial reporting can be rigorously measured, independently evaluated, and publicly rewarded, why should excellence in the administration of justice not be treated with the same seriousness?
Under Article 172 of the Constitution, the Judicial Service Commission is mandated to promote and facilitate the independence and accountability of the Judiciary to ensure efficient, effective, and transparent administration of justice. Accountability and excellence, therefore, are not optional ideals; they are constitutional imperatives.
The FiRe Awards offer a powerful lesson. They are jointly promoted by institutions with distinct mandates including professional bodies and regulators yet united by a common objective: improving transparency, integrity, and public confidence. Each institution advances its mandate, but the ultimate beneficiary is the public.
The justice sector operates in much the same way. Justice is not delivered by courts alone. It is the product of an entire chain: police investigations, prosecutorial decisions, judicial processes, probation services, correctional institutions, legal practitioners, court administration, and even the media. When any link in that chain underperforms, justice suffers.
Kenya has already made commendable progress within the Judiciary through performance management frameworks that track efficiency and effectiveness. However, justice by its nature is a continuum. Internal reforms, while necessary, are insufficient if inefficiencies persist elsewhere along the justice chain. A case delayed at investigation, prosecution, or enforcement stages undermines justice just as surely as a delayed judgment.
This is why the time has come to consider the establishment of Sector-Wide Judicial Excellence Awards, anchored within the framework of the National Council on the Administration of Justice (NCAJ). NCAJ brings together all key justice sector actors and provides a constitutionally grounded platform for collective ownership, coordination, and reform.
The idea is simple but transformative: what we measure, recognise, and reward is more likely to improve. A well-designed awards framework would not be about ceremony for its own sake. It would be about setting clear performance standards, encouraging innovation, and creating healthy competition anchored in constitutional values.
Such awards could recognise excellence across practical, citizen-facing areas: the most efficient court registry, the most effective police station in case processing, exemplary courtroom management, child-friendly justice services, best-performing remand facilities or borstals, responsible legal journalism, and law firms advancing public interest litigation. These are the touchpoints where citizens experience or fail to experience justice.
Kenya already has important recognition initiatives, such as the Jurist of the Year Award, which honours individual courage and commitment to the rule of law. That recognition remains vital. However, individual brilliance alone cannot fix systemic weaknesses. Justice delivery ultimately rises or falls on institutional performance.
A sector-wide Judicial Excellence Award would focus on outcomes: reduced delays, improved case flow, professionalism, ethical conduct, and responsiveness to the public. With the support of technology, performance indicators could be tracked objectively, reducing subjectivity and strengthening credibility. Over time, the awards would double as a diagnostic tool highlighting bottlenecks and guiding reform priorities.
Importantly, such an initiative would not replace oversight, discipline, or accountability mechanisms. Rather, it would complement them by creating positive incentives for excellence. Experience across sectors shows that recognition, when transparently earned, can be a powerful driver of behavioural change.
At its core, this proposal is about public trust. Citizens care less about institutional boundaries and more about whether justice is timely, fair, and accessible. A system that publicly celebrates excellence and openly confronts underperformance signals seriousness about reform.
Justice is not merely pronounced in courtrooms. It is delivered through the collective performance of an entire system. By recognising and rewarding excellence across the justice chain, Kenya can take a decisive step toward a more efficient, accountable, and people-centred justice system.
The question, therefore, is no longer whether such an initiative is desirable, but whether we are ready to embrace a culture where excellence in justice delivery is expected, measured, and celebrated sector wide.
