Judiciary chiefs in hybrid regimes: Kenya

This article examines the critical role of judicial chiefs in hybrid regimes using Kenya as a case study. It highlights how judicial effectiveness arises from the complex dynamics of leadership, institutional independence, interdependence, and public support. Through an analysis of the tenures of Kenya’s first three Chief Justices post 2010—Mutunga, Maraga, and Koome—the study demonstrates that impactful judicial leadership transcends individual stature. Rather, it hinges on the judiciary’s ability to fulfill its judicial review mandate, protect institutional integrity, foster public trust, and collaborate with other government branches to fortify democracy. Each Chief Justice faced distinct challenges and adopted unique strategies to address them, highlighting the judiciary’s pivotal role in navigating political and constitutional pressures. The findings reveal that, in hybrid regimes, judicial efficacy depends on a judiciary’s capacity to uphold constitutional principles, assert its authority, and maintain independence amidst a volatile political environment. As Kenya’s judiciary continues to evolve, its leaders must focus on institutional cohesion, resource management, and public engagement to meet their democratic and constitutional responsibilities. This analysis reaffirms that in hybrid regimes, judicial resilience is essential for preventing authoritarian regression and advancing democratic constitutionalism.