The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has formally ordered Chief Justice Martha Koome to respond to a petition filed by city lawyer Christopher Rosana, which seeks her removal from office for alleged severe incompetence.
The petition, which was lodged in August 2024, is centered around a controversial decision involving senior counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi and the implications of a January 18, 2024, Supreme Court ruling.
In a letter dated February 4, 2025, addressed to Rosana, Winfridah Mokaya, the Secretary of the JSC and Judiciary Chief Registrar, confirmed that the Chief Justice had been granted time to file her response to the petition.
The letter also clarified that once Koome’s response is received, it will be placed before the Commission for further deliberation.
“Reference is made to the above subject matter and your Petition dated August 1, 2024. The Petition was tabled before the Commission on January 24, 2025, and upon deliberation, it was resolved that the Honourable Chief Justice be requested to submit a response to the Petition,” Mokaya stated in the communication to Rosana.
“Please note that the response, once received, will be placed before the Commission for further deliberation, and the decision of the Commission on the Petition shall be communicated to you,” the letter continued.
The petition filed by Rosana primarily concerns a ruling by the Supreme Court on January 18, 2024, which banned renowned lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi from appearing before the Court.
The decision, communicated via a letter from the Supreme Court Registrar Letizia Wachira, also terminated Abdullahi’s right to have any representation by others acting on his instructions.
This ruling has sparked a significant legal debate across the country.
Rosana’s petition alleges that Chief Justice Koome, as the head of the Supreme Court, holds direct responsibility for this controversial decision.
He argues that the Chief Justice’s actions reflect a lack of foresight and legal competence, which has resulted in a constitutional and judicial crisis.
In his petition, Rosana contends that the January 18 decision was not only flawed but also led to a series of legal complications, including a ruling by High Court Judge Chacha Mwita on June 28, 2024.
The High Court had to intervene after the Law Society of Kenya filed a case challenging the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Judge Mwita’s decision underscored the far-reaching consequences of the Supreme Court’s actions, with Abdullahi’s firm and associates being denied audience before the Court, and even Supreme Court justices recusing themselves from cases involving the firm.
“The ruling included the denial of an audience to his associates and the subsequent recusal of Supreme Court justices from cases involving Abdullahi’s firm,” Rosana noted in his petition.
Rosana has sharply criticized Koome for not anticipating the legal ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision, particularly the potential challenges under the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015.
According to Rosana, by failing to foresee these consequences, Koome set the stage for the High Court to intervene in a matter that should have been handled within the Supreme Court, undermining the authority of the judiciary’s highest institution.
“By not anticipating these challenges, the Chief Justice created a situation where the High Court had to assess the legality of the Supreme Court’s actions,” Rosana pointed out.
“This not only created a constitutional crisis but also led to an embarrassing situation for the Supreme Court.”
The petition raises concerns about the potential breach of the principle of impartiality.
Rosana highlights that the Supreme Court could end up reviewing its own decisions, creating a situation where impartiality is questioned.
“With the Supreme Court itself being a party to potential appeals from the High Court’s review, the Chief Justice’s actions have, according to the petition, led to a situation where the court may end up judging its own decisions, compromising the perception of justice,” Rosana argued.
Additionally, Rosana has criticized Koome for failing to explore alternative options before resorting to the drastic step of banning a senior counsel from appearing before the Court.
He warns that such actions could set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to arbitrary denials of access to the courts in the future.
“The decision to impose a ban on a senior counsel without considering other legal or procedural options is, according to Rosana, a dangerous precedent. It risks undermining the principles of justice and fairness,” he warned.
Rosana also expressed deep concern over the long-term implications for the legal profession, arguing that denying a senior counsel the right of audience without sufficient justification undermines the foundational principles of justice.
“If the Supreme Court can deny a senior counsel’s audience without sufficient justification, it risks undermining the principles of justice and fairness, leading to arbitrary denials of access to the courts,” he emphasized.
