At the center of the petition is Rutto’s claimed active participation in the United Democratic Alliance (UDA), a political party, which Muriuki says is incompatible with the responsibilities of a JSC member.
In his petition, Muriuki argues that the Judicial Service Commission is a key pillar in protecting the independence and integrity of Kenya’s judiciary.
The commission is responsible for hiring judges, handling disciplinary matters, and ensuring that the justice system operates without political interference.
Because of this critical role, its members are expected to uphold the highest standards of integrity, impartiality, and political neutrality.
The lawyer claims that Isaac Rutto has breached these standards by engaging openly in party politics.
According to the petition, such actions amount to gross misconduct and directly violate constitutional provisions that bar certain public officers from active political participation.
Muriuki argues that when a JSC member associates with a political party, it raises serious questions about fairness and independence in judicial matters.
Muriuki further states that the Constitution is clear on the separation between politics and institutions that oversee justice.
He argues that the judiciary must not only be independent but must also be seen to be independent by the public.
Any perception of political influence, he says, weakens public confidence and undermines the rule of law.
The petition warns that allowing a JSC member to engage in partisan politics sets a dangerous precedent.
Muriuki argues that if such conduct goes unchecked, it could open the door for political interests to influence judicial appointments, promotions, and disciplinary processes.
This, he says, would go against the spirit and letter of the Constitution.
In addition to calling for Rutto’s removal, the petition seeks a full investigation into the allegations.
Muriuki insists that accountability is necessary to protect the credibility of the Judicial Service Commission and the wider justice system.
He says the matter is not personal but constitutional, and that safeguarding institutions is more important than protecting individuals.