Judiciary: fake 17 August Koome letter on Supreme Court interference is not ours
Key points
- Judiciary on Monday 17 August 2026 said a circulating letter dated the same day, headed as a CJ Martha Koome statement on Supreme Court interference, was fake.
- It was not written by Koome, her office or any authorised organ.
- The fabrication claimed DCJ Philomena Mwilu had complained to JSC; it named former CJ David Maraga, Senior Counsel Kalonzo Musyoka and impeached former DP Rigathi Gachagua.
- The public was told to verify any CJ/Judiciary paper on official channels and ignore the letter.
“The name, office and authority of the Chief Justice must not be misrepresented to lend credibility to political messaging or misinformation.” That line, from a Monday Judiciary statement, is the only official sentence that matters in this file, Eastleigh Voice reported on 17 August 2026.
A letter dated the same day, headed “Statement by CJ Martha Koome on reported attempts to interfere with the independence of the Supreme Court,” had gone around social media. The Judiciary said Martha Koome did not write it. The fake text alleged Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu had taken a complaint to the Judicial Service Commission about pressure on a pending Supreme Court petition — eligibility of impeached public officers to run again — and named former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua as the “principal beneficiary.” It said approaches came through former Chief Justice David Maraga and Senior Counsel Kalonzo Musyoka, and that JSC had opened an investigation, extra security for Mwilu’s bench, and a caution to Gachagua. Those are claims inside a document the Judiciary has disowned. Repeating them as fact would be to do the forger’s work. The institution said fabrication of official communication is serious when it pins positions on a court that never took them, and that it remains an independent arm. Readers were told to check any paper said to be from the CJ against Judiciary channels before sharing. A denial is not a ruling on the impeachment petition — that case, if it exists on the cause list, still has to be read from the registry, not from a PDF with no letterhead trail.
A viral PDF is not a JSC minute
If someone forged a CJ letter, that is a crime file for DCI and a takedown job for platforms. The Judiciary should publish a hash or scan of what circulated so editors can match it.
Communications desk: Communications. Verified Monday denial, 17 August date on the fake heading and named figures inside it from Eastleigh Voice.
JSC should say, in one line, that it did not issue the “investigation” orders quoted. Media houses should correct any story that treated the letter as real.
Readers should open judiciary.go.ke, not a forwarded image, before quoting the CJ.
Readers should cross-check any deadline, fee, court date or programme claim against primary gazettes, agency circulars and court records before acting on this report.
Official gazettes, court rulings and agency circulars may update these facts after publication; readers should verify any deadline, fee or court date against primary sources before acting.
Based on Eastleigh Voice reporting of the Judiciary’s Monday statement. The letter described is denied as official.
