A petition has been lodged with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) seeking the removal of Chief Justice Martha Koome from office.
Filed by Lawyer Christopher Rosana, he accuses Koome of severe incompetence, particularly concerning a controversial decision involving senior counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi.
The core of Rosana’s petition revolves around a January 18, 2024, decision by the Supreme Court of Kenya that banned lawyer Abdullahi from appearing before the court.
The decision, communicated through a letter from the Registrar of the Supreme Court, Letizia Wachira, effectively terminated Abdullahi’s right to an audience, not only for himself but also for anyone representing him or acting on his instructions.
In his petition, Rosana argues that Chief Justice Koome, as the head of the Supreme Court, bears primary responsibility for this decision and its subsequent implementation.
He contends that this action reflects a serious failure of foresight and competence on the part of the Chief Justice, which has led to a constitutional and judicial crisis.
The decision to ban Abdullahi has sparked intense debate and raised several legal questions.
On June 28, 2024, Rosana says the High Court Judge Chacha Mwita ruled on the matter in a case filed by the Law Society of Kenya against the Supreme Court and others.
Judge Mwita’s ruling highlighted the fallout from the Supreme Court’s decision: Abdullahi’s firm was denied audience, and his associates faced similar restrictions.
” 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,” Ronasa states.
Rosana’s petition criticizes Chief Justice Koome for failing to anticipate the legal ramifications of the ban, including potential challenges under the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015.
The petition suggests that by not anticipating these consequences, the Chief Justice created a situation where the High Court had to step in to assess the legality of the Supreme Court’s actions, thus undermining the hierarchical order of the judiciary.
Rosana argues that Chief Justice Koome, with her extensive judicial experience, should have anticipated that the decision to ban Abdullahi could be challenged under administrative action laws.
This failure, he claims, resulted in the Supreme Court facing scrutiny from a lower court, an embarrassing situation for the highest court in the land.
The petition also raises concerns about the principle of impartiality.
“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,” He says.
Furthermore, Rosana criticizes Koome for failing to explore alternative measures that might have prevented the current crisis.
The decision to impose a ban on a senior counsel without considering other legal or procedural options is, according to Rosana, a dangerous precedent.
He warns that such a move sets a troubling example, potentially leading to arbitrary denials of access to the courts.
Finally, Rosana expresses concern that the Chief Justice’s actions set a dangerous precedent regarding the right of audience for counsel.
“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 states.
