Justice Chitembwe had moved to court seeking to block the hearings, saying the video recordings, social media posts and phone calls linking him to bribery were obtained without his knowledge and consent.
He argued that illegally obtained evidence cannot form the basis for the removal of a judge.
Justice Hedwig Ong’udi ruled that stopping the inquiry would amount to interfering with the mandate of JSC.
High Court judge Said Chitembwe will this morning appear before the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) over accusations of bribery after failing to stop the inquiry last week.
Justice Chitembwe had moved to court seeking to block the hearings, saying the video recordings, social media posts and phone calls linking him to bribery were obtained without his knowledge and consent.
He argued that illegally obtained evidence cannot form the basis for the removal of a judge. But Justice Hedwig Ong’udi ruled that stopping the inquiry would amount to interfering with the mandate of JSC.
“The application is based on an allegation that the petitioner was not given sufficient time to respond. That to me is an issue that JSC is able to deal with. I have therefore not been shown any violation of the law to make this court to grant the prayers sought by the petitioner at this point,” Justice Ong’undi said.
Justice Chitembwe had opposed the use of the recordings posted by former Nairobi governor Mike Sonko on social media, arguing that they were obtained in contravention of the Constitution. Other than faulting the evidence, the High Court judge argued that he was given a few days to prepare himself in four petitions.
He said he was required to get witnesses, contact his advocates and prepare his responses, yet he is currently based in North-Eastern and some of the issues raised against him are proceedings that he handled while in Malindi.
“The petitioner is aggrieved that the petitions for his removal from office and the proceedings by the 6th respondent (JSC) under Article 168(1) & (2) of the constitution are based on the petitioner’s private conversations obtained without his consent and in violation of his rights to privacy,” he said in a statement, adding that the proceedings are therefore on the basis of illegally obtained evidence.
