Faced with the challenge of delivering a new constitution in a year, the Minister for Justice, National Cohesion and Constitutional Affairs, Ms Martha Karua, has found herself embroiled in divisive issues such as calls for granting amnesty to suspects of the 2007 post election violence, speeding up judicial reforms and taking the war against corruption forward.

Business Daily's ALBERT MURIUKI sought out the minister's views on these and other matters essential for the delivery of justice in Kenya.

BD: Budgetary estimates show that your ministry needed one billion shillings compared to Sh774 million last year. The increase is being attributed to provision for the setting up of commissions. Could you shed light on what these commissions are?

Ms Karua: These are mainly the Commissions of Inquiry on post-election violence, Truth, Justice and Reconciliation, Ethnic and Race Relations and the setting up of a Public Complaints Standing Committee and the National Cohesion Department.

Being a policy vehicle, we do not require so much money for our operations. It is the semi autonomous agencies that are affiliated to us that actually do the work and the rest of the government departments. This is not a money guzzling ministry as such.

BD: What does the ministry's policy direction entail?

Ms Karua: We develop the policies on anti corruption, human rights, and administration of justice.

We will now have to develop a policy on National Cohesion. We then liaise with the other ministries and departments that are implementing those policies.

BD: In South Africa in 1995, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established to deal with the atrocities of the apartheid regime. The perpetrators who confessed their sins were forgiven. Should Kenya not travel that path?

Ms Karua: In and of itself, no Truth Commission can create reconciliation. Much less can a Truth Commission create peace which is a must for business to thrive and for economic stability and development.

However, they do create conditions which make reconciliation and peaceful coexistence possible. They do this by uncovering the reality which embraces the factual truth of the past, and the emotional truth of both the past and of the present.

I think ours is a bit different from the South African one.

The law before Parliament says that the Commission can recommend amnesty in some circumstances, but there cannot be an offer for blanket amnesty because International Law and even our law forbids amnesty for crimes against humanity and other certain offences. So our law will guide which way we are to go.

One of the reasons for the Commissions is to ensure Kenyans - the tax payers - have a conducive environment to do business, when we say investors, we tend to think its only foreign investors, no! The investment that spurs economic growth in any country is made by the people of that country and Kenya is no exception.

BD: Between the ministry, the Judiciary and the Kenya Anti Corruption Commission, do you have a co-ordinating mechanism to ensure the three of bodies are not working at cross-purposes, especially on corruption which is the greatest hindrance to investor confidence in Kenya?

Ms Karua: There is engagement through the GJLOS programme. Through thematic groups, the key players get together and engage with the various sectors in those areas.

The three bodies meet under the thematic group on administration of justice that is actually chaired by the Judiciary.

Last year the Judiciary started forming court users committees as a way of bringing people who work in the same sector together, including consumers of the justice system - the public - through lawyers.

You then discuss where there are bottle necks, how to improve and the best cause of action to be taken. The Ministry also facilitates the Judiciary and will soon be tabling the Judicial Service Commission Bill once it is brought back to us for enactment.

BD: The KACC director (Aaron Ringera) recently gave a severe indictment of the Judiciary accusing it of giving orders that do not support the fight against corruption? Do you share the sentiments?

Ms Karua: I share those sentiments fully. There has been a ruling or two, that are difficult to comprehend and which have on the face of it appeared to hinder the work against corruption.

To actually hinder investigations through an injunction against investigations, from a jurisprudential point of view, is difficult to understand.

However, it is incumbent upon KACC, to immediately move to overturn such a decision, either through an appeal or review, whichever is the appropriate method.

I would also urge KACC, to review its methods and to see whether they have also passed their cases fast enough, even with the delays in the judiciary, there are ways in which a litigant can accelerate their cases.

The KACC must also review its methods with a view to improving and accelerating proceedings and also mitigating their losses.

Because if there is a bar to a certain line of investigation, is it possible for KACC to use the available evidence to bring charges against the suspect? Those are issues only the KACC can know because they are the ones who have the evidence.

But I again want to appreciate that where they have brought charges when international investigations are not complete, the A-G has returned the files to them.

So the question is, is it just the Courts or is there a problem in the A-G's chambers? Is there something that these three players can do to ensure that the fight against corruption is not fought in vain? The A-G must really review their workings.

BD: Do you think the Judiciary and KACC have been doing enough to enhance the fight against corruption?

Ms Karua: There is a lot more that they can do. There is much more we, without exception, as Kenyans should do, and there is even much more the Government can do. It behoves all of us to accelerate the pace at which we can re-energise

our strategies to ensure that we combat this vice. The cases are going through and being concluded, although at a very slow pace.

The Judiciary can ensure that cases are heard on a timely basis. Although there is a law and a directive that corruption cases are heard on a day to day basis, the courts are still entertaining adjournment applications.

Courts are in control and can make the decision whether to adjourn or not. Our courts have to be conscious; when you realise a case has been going on for over one year, surely, you should worry about the management of such a case.

There is a lot more the Judiciary can do in terms of managing, not only corruption cases, but all other cases, to ensure timely conclusion.

BD: There are special Anti Corruption Courts and Anti Corruption Magistrates that were set up. What seems to be the problem?

Ms Karua: The directive is not being followed, cases are still being adjourned. It is up to the Chief Justice's office administratively to see what can be done to rectify the problem.

Another directive in January 2006 that judicial reviews in corruption cases should be set down for hearing and determination within 45 days is also not being followed. As a result, cases that were preventing corruption cases involving prominent people from going on, are still pending.

The Chief Justice's office needs to ask why the directive is not being followed.

However, the Judiciary should not be blamed alone, the A-G's office leads these cases, they too should inform the court of the rules and push for them to be followed. The A-G's office should make sure the cases are expeditiously heard - they should make sure the 45 day rule is followed for the good of Kenyans.

BD: The Grand Coalition Government has gone on record stating that the country should have a new constitution in 12 months. What plans do you have in place to avoid a scenario like that of 2005 since the same players are now back together again in another government?

Ms Karua: When we are designing the new law to enable us to complete the constitutional review process we are learning from those mistakes (of 2005). The Constitution is such an important document, we cannot afford to have it contested, we must go by way of consensus.

We will go by way of consensus, and where we have an issue that is contested, we will remove that issue. It will be placed separately so that it can be revisited in the future even after a new document has been enacted.

We do intend and we hope to go into a referendum where Kenyans will just be voting: "Yes we want the constitution."