Justice Samuel Muhochi of the Nakuru High Court issued the contested orders in a case filed by Nakuru-based surgeon Magare Gikenyi and Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah.

The orders, which also froze all pending payments by government institutions and counties to various private law firms for work already completed, were described by Wanyama as unconstitutional and a direct threat to the legal profession and advocates’ livelihoods.

“The orders of January 12, 2026 of Justice Samuel Muhochi of Nakuru High Court in Nakuru Petition 001 of 2026 that prohibits all public entities in Kenya from hiring external law firms-are centrally problematic, deeply confusing, and patently unconstitutional,” the lawyers stated.

In a statement issued hours after the ruling, he warned: “Make no mistake about this! The legal profession is under attack. Lawyers are under attack. Law firms are under attack!”

Wanyama argued that the directives contradict Article 227(1) of the Constitution, which allows public entities to procure legal services through fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, and cost-effective means.

He questioned how far-reaching orders could be issued at the ex-parte stage, affecting entities not party to the case.

“The learned judge cannot possibly issue an order that stops the implementation of clear constitutional provisions,” he said.

The lawyer who has previously represented various state institutions and county governments across the country outlined five key reasons why external law firms are essential for public entities.

He noted that public institutions procure external legal services to bridge capacity gaps, handle complex cases, and manage conflicts of interest that in-house lawyers cannot address.

Citing the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) as an example, Wanyama explained that during the 2017 election cycle, IEBC faced over 400 election petitions simultaneously.

“The eight or so in-house lawyers that IEBC employs cannot handle all the petitions. It is humanly impossible to do so,” he said.

Wanyama also highlighted the role of professional indemnity insurance held by law firms, which protects public entities in case of litigation losses, coverage unavailable with internal legal teams.

“In some cases, the insurance runs into millions and billions of shillings. This means a public entity that procures a law firm but incurs losses arising from bad legal representation gets compensated. This benefit is not available to public entities in case of in-house legal representation,” Wanyama said.

He further criticized the timing and scope of the Ex-parte orders, asking how far-reaching directives could be issued without hearing affected parties.

In a direct appeal to Justice Muhochi, he stated: “A judge has the right to make wrong decisions, but has no right to make consciously, conspicuously, and patently wrong decisions.”

He also faulted the freezing of payments for services already rendered under valid contracts, some arising from mandamus orders by other judges.

“Don’t you see conflict in the enforcement of court orders, a situation that public policy in Kenya expressly prohibits?” Wanyama asked.

Wanyama warned that the court order represents serious efforts to undermine the legal profession, citing ongoing attempts to introduce a no-fault-based system that could harm legal practice.

“This court order is not a mistake; it reflects ongoing efforts to undermine the legal profession and diminish the status of advocates,” he stated.

“This situation underscores the necessity for a strategically strong, assertive, and impactful bar.”

He vowed to move to court to challenge the directives and participate in the Nakuru case to have the orders set aside or quashed.

“In the meantime, I will seek to actively participate in the Nakuru case to set aside or quash the impugned orders.” Wanyama said.

The post Lawyer Wanyama Condemns Court Order Blocking Public Entities From Public Sector appeared first on Insider Bits News.