Many Kenyans have been following the Gachagua impeachment case keenly via television screens like students in a classroom. Young advocates have watched different counsel rise, pause, persuade, and answer difficult questions from either side. Law students have followed every interruption, every objection, and every citation. Even ordinary citizens who have never entered a courtroom have begun to understand that litigation is not limited to documents. It extends to advocacy, presence, timing, persuasion and perhaps much more. This moment has reminded the legal profession of something important.
Technology is necessary in modern judicial management and trial by written submissions, but it should not completely replace physical oral advocacy. Courts must embrace digital systems without losing the traditions that give advocacy its character and public meaning. Across the world, courts have adopted technology to improve efficiency. Electronic filing, virtual hearings, digital cause lists, online judgments, and automated scheduling have reduced delay and unnecessary movement. During the COVID-19 pandemic period, many courts survived because of technology. In Kenya and other Commonwealth jurisdictions, lawyers could file pleadings from their offices and attend mentions through video links. Litigants saved transport costs, and judges managed files more quickly.
Legal scholars such as Julie Donoghue and Michael Legg have argued that digital justice improves access to justice when used carefully. Technology allows courts to continue operating during crises and helps the public follow proceedings more easily. Televised hearings and live-streamed judgments have also strengthened the principle of open justice. Citizens can now observe courts without physically entering court buildings and worrying about space. This efficiency, however, should not become the only way; something more of law and tradition needs to be resuscitated. A courtroom is a living institution. Oral arguments remain one of the oldest and most respected traditions in common law practice.
Written submissions are useful, but they cannot fully replace the value of live advocacy before a judge. Many matters today are disposed of almost entirely through written submissions. Lawyers file long documents, attach authorities, and wait for a ruling. The process may save time, but it sometimes weakens the practical craft of litigation. A young advocate learns advocacy by watching and listening. They learn how to address the court respectfully, how to respond under pressure, and how to simplify a difficult legal point within seconds. These skills cannot be fully taught in lecture halls, given the lack of unanimity in our Kenyan legal training.
Senior advocates also sharpen the profession through oral litigation. One experienced counsel can teach an entire generation of lawyers simply through courtroom conduct. The rhythm of questioning, the careful choice of words, and the discipline of responding directly to the Bench are part of legal culture. Televised proceedings allow that culture to reach beyond the courtroom walls. The Gachagua impeachment petition demonstrated this clearly. Kenyans were never just treated to a political issue. They watched constitutional litigation in action; the learning, even for the general public, is commendable. They observed counsel cite precedent, defend procedure, and answer judicial concerns in real time. The hearing became a public lesson in constitutional democracy. It showed that oral litigation has educational value for both lawyers and citizens.
Open justice has always required visibility. Marilyn Warren and Daniel Stepniak have written that public confidence grows when court proceedings are accessible and understandable. Physical hearings and public broadcasts allow citizens to see how judges reason and how advocates present cases. Written submissions alone rarely create that connection with the public. There is also a human side to oral advocacy. Judges often test arguments through questions that are not anticipated in written submissions. A lawyer may discover weaknesses in their own case while responding to the court. Sometimes a single answer changes the direction of a matter. Oral hearings, therefore, improve judicial decision-making because they create direct engagement between the court and counsel.
This does not mean technology should be resisted. The future judiciary must remain modern, efficient, and digitally connected. Electronic filing has reduced corruption opportunities linked to missing files. Virtual mentions save time for routine appearances. Digital transcription improves record-keeping. Online access to judgments helps legal research and public awareness. These reforms should continue. The challenge is balance. Routine applications can proceed online or through written submissions, but substantial constitutional matters, public interest cases, and complex appeals should preserve robust oral hearings. Law is about process, transparency and public participation.
A courtroom should never become silent simply because technology is available. The art of persuasion still matters. Young advocates deserve the chance to rise before a judge and test their voices. Law students deserve the chance to witness advocacy beyond textbooks. The public deserves to see justice done openly and clearly. Technology should support litigation in a manner that never replaces its soul. The future of judicial management lies in combining digital efficiency with the enduring tradition of oral advocacy. That balance will preserve both modern justice and the living spirit of the courtroom.
The legal profession must therefore guard against turning advocacy into a purely clerical exercise. Courts were historically designed as public forums where ideas could be tested openly. Even in the age of artificial intelligence, electronic filing, and virtual hearings, the voice of counsel still carries weight. A well-delivered oral submission can clarify confusion faster than 50 pages of written arguments. Judicial reform should therefore always protect oral hearings as a permanent feature of serious litigation.
