Benard Odero Okello of Benard Odero & Company Advocates was arrested at his office at The Westery Building in Westlands after he allegedly resisted a directive to surrender himself to police for questioning.

The arrest followed investigations into a complaint lodged by three Nairobi branch officials of the Kenya County Government Workers Union, who accused the lawyer of forging their signatures on documents filed in Nairobi Employment and Labour Relations Court Cause No. E068 of 2022.

According to the investigators, Odero presented a purported Change of Signatory & Fee Note Agreement, which indicated that the three complainants had agreed to pay him Sh150 million upon conclusion of a case in which he claimed to have represented them.

However, the union officials denied signing or executing the agreement, prompting investigators to subject the disputed documents to forensic examination.

The documents, together with specimens of the complainants’ known signatures, were submitted to a forensic document examiner for analysis.

The examination established that the signatures appearing on the disputed documents were forged, according to the forensic report.

The findings subsequently formed the basis for a recommendation to prosecute the lawyer on charges of forgery and uttering a false document.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) on September 2, 2026, directed that Odero be charged with two counts of forgery and uttering a false document.

He was subsequently summoned to appear at Parklands Police Station but allegedly failed to honour the directive.

Police then launched a search for the lawyer and eventually traced him to his Westlands office.

His arrest, however, was not without incident.

Investigators said Odero resisted attempts to take him into custody and at one point threatened to jump from the eighth-floor window of his office in an apparent attempt to evade arrest.

Police eventually managed to restrain and arrest him.

According to the investigators, Odero allegedly bit two police officers who were attempting to handcuff him.

The incident has now triggered additional criminal charges against the lawyer, with police expected to prefer counts of resisting arrest and assaulting police officers.

The additional allegations will be presented alongside the forgery-related charges approved by the ODPP.

The case stems from the disputed documents that investigators say were used to support Odero’s claim for the Sh150 million legal fees.

The complainants’ denial that they signed the agreement prompted the forensic examination, which investigators say corroborated their claims that the signatures were not genuine.

Odero is expected to be presented before court to face the charges.

The post Lawyer arrested over Sh150m forgery case appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In a statement issued on February 9, LSK President Faith Odhiambo said the society had observed complaints involving members of the legal profession, with a significant number of those affected appearing to be associates, interns, and pupils in law firms and organizations.

“From the outset, we voice our unequivocal condemnation of such conduct and assert that the same offends the ethical standards of the legal profession, and amounts to both professional misconduct and criminal conduct on the part of proven perpetrators,” Odhiambo stated.

The statement comes as advocate Felix Keaton filed a formal complaint with the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal against fellow lawyer Faith Ong’ayo Wandera, alleging professional misconduct over an Instagram post he claims falsely accused him of sexual harassment.

According to filed documents, the complaint relates to a February 7 post on an Instagram account with approximately 20,600 followers

“Wueeh na mnasemanga kuna LSK sexual harassment policy. What was your worst law-firm experience? Kuna huyu wakili anaitwa Keaton ule wa maandamano. He will sexually harass any young lady in his vicinity (happened to two ladies I know). And he only employs freshly admitted women…,” the post stated

In his sworn affidavit, Keaton alleges the post made false accusations and used social media in a manner incompatible with the Constitution of Kenya, the Advocates Act, and LSK’s Code of Standards of Professional Practice and Ethical Conduct.

“The allegations made by Ong’ayo Wandera Faith Advocate against are false and the attack on my reputation and dignity is unjustified. The truth of the matter is that I am an ethical Lawyer and I have never engaged in the conduct insinuated,” the affidavit states.

The LSK statement revealed that the Disciplinary Tribunal recently ruled in a November 2025 case involving allegations against one lawyer by 22 colleagues that it did not have jurisdiction as sexual harassment is a criminal offense that should be prosecuted through criminal channels.

LSK described this decision as “regrettable” and said it “exposes a gap in the legal framework for handling of sexual harassment cases.”

The society emphasized that allegations of sexual harassment within the profession must be pursued through its established internal disciplinary processes, including the Advocates Complaints Commission and the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal, while also being reported to police.

“The Law Society of Kenya, through the Gender Committee, remains fully committed to supporting victims who pursue either or both avenues and will render all necessary assistance in facilitating accountability,” the statement said.

LSK acknowledged that implementation of its Sexual Harassment and Anti-Bullying Policy, adopted in 2019, had been staggered for years before being revived under current leadership.

The society announced it will collaborate with the Advocates Benevolent Association to provide free counseling sessions, engage FIDA-Kenya to handle investigations, and seek support from the Witness Protection Agency for vulnerable victims.

The complaint against Ong’ayo will be heard by the Disciplinary Tribunal, chaired by Taib Ali Taib, SC. No hearing date has been set.

The post LSK Has Taken Note of Sexual Harassment Complaints as Advocate Files Case Over Instagram Post appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Through his representatives, Senior Counsels Paul Muite and Fred Ngatia, Ahmednasir conveyed his contrition and commitment to respecting judicial dignity during an application heard on Tuesday before Chief Justice Martha Koome and five other Supreme Court judges.

In a dramatic turnaround from his previously defiant position, Ahmednasir has acknowledged the seriousness of his past conduct and expressed genuine regret.

Lawyer Dennis Musota, appearing in the matter where the application was made, told the bench: “I do believe that it has occasioned a sober reflection and genuine remorse on the part of the senior counsel.”

Musota informed the court that the banned lawyer now understands that “the relationship between the bar and the bench is not necessarily adversarial, but a custodial one, each entrusted with guarding the authority of the law.”

The senior counsel has committed to fundamentally altering his approach to judicial commentary.

Musota assured the judges that Ahmednasir “will recalibrate his conduct, especially in relation to the commentaries relating to matters before this court and any other courts.”

He promised that future comments would be “measured and with due regard to preserving the integrity, honour of the courts and the members of the courts.”

Senior Counsel Paul Muite revealed that extensive discussions had taken place with Ahmednasir about professional standards.

“Whatever concerns a member of the bar might have about a particular judge or judges, the choice of language in raising those concerns needs to recognize and appreciate the high office held by a judge of this honorable court,” Muite told the court.

“We have had that discussion and that discussion is appreciated, in particular, by Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi.”

Senior Counsel Fred Ngatia pointed to recent behavior as concrete evidence of change.

When Justice Njoki Ndungu asked whether Ahmednasir had accepted certain “irreducible minimums” regarding professional conduct, Ngatia responded emphatically: “Yes, he has. Is there evidence about it? The beauty with evidence, the way I’m approaching this matter, is to look at the time past. In the recent past, all those matters are no longer what they used to be.”

He added: “Not a single word has fallen to the ground. All the words in the order have been well received and have been acted upon. And thank you, my Lord, Chief Justice Lenaola, my Lord, Justice Joki. Yes, diplomatic language. This is a very difficult matter that we are dealing with.”

The Supreme Court imposed the unprecedented restriction on January 23, 2024, following what it described as Ahmednasir’s persistent attacks on the judges and the judiciary.

The order comprehensively barred him from appearing “either by himself, through an employee of his law firm, or any other person holding his brief, or acting pursuant to his instructions.”

Supreme Court Registrar L.M Wachira’s letter stated bluntly: “It is untenable that you would seek justice in the very institution and before the very Judges, whose reputation and integrity you never tire in assaulting.”

The court noted that while the decision would affect Ahmednasir’s clients, it could not continue to tolerate attacks on its integrity.

Presenting the case for vacating the order, Senior Counsel Muite argued: “That denial of audience, in our very humble submission, has lived and in fact served its purpose. It is our humble prayer, extremely humble prayer, that the order be vacated.”

Fred Ngatia emphasized the significance of the two-year period, stating: “It is exactly two years, two calendar years. Time becomes a very good tool for communication, and that time, as I have indicated, is fairly substantial.”

He argued that circumstances had fundamentally changed.

“I would state without any fear, that the factors that may have prompted the Suomoto order are now largely historical, and I would also state without any fear, that henceforth, what I would expect, and Madam Senior, would be scholarly comments that practitioners ordinarily make,” Ngatia said

The application faced rigorous questioning from the bench.

Justice Njoki Ndungu pressed for specific assurances: “Are you reassuring us that in future he commits to respect and decorum to the Bench? You have spoken of scholarly works. Are you assuring us that the scholarly works and comments will not take the format that they have done in the past, and which was the basis of our order? I think you need to speak to us with clarity on these questions.”

Justice Isaac Lenaola similarly emphasized that the application should address “the offending conduct and offending words. I thought that would be a better way to proceed than to use time as the only basis for the application. I heard you on the first point, but I thought out of good faith and decency and etiquette and decorum, that bit should also come out of your submissions.”

Musota told the court that the two-year ban had achieved its corrective purpose.

“The order that is the subject of these proceedings with senior counsel has been well received and understood as a corrective intervention directed at preserving the dignity and the integrity of the process of this court. That intervention has spoken. The lessons have been learned and the experience taken positively.”

Senior Counsel Ngatia appealed for a fresh start in bench-bar relations.

“Let us not be held hostage by historical facts, or the relics of those facts. Let us now break bread and move forward, united as bench and bar, to a new dawn, a new dawn where none of the past is ever likely to come, disturb the breaking of bread, He said”

He also expressed broader concerns for the legal profession: “Chief Justice, I dearly hope on behalf of my colleagues in the bar that this incident will not happen again. And maybe we need to introspect as a bar. What are the extents that we practitioners ought to go to and what should we go to?”

The remorseful tone represents a sharp departure from Ahmednasir’s initial reaction to the ban.

In January 2024, he had posted defiantly on social media: “I will not take a brief or appear before the Supreme Court as long as CJ Koome, DCJ Mwilu, Smokin Wanja and Njoki are judges of the Supreme Court Kenya.”

Chief Justice Koome concluded Tuesday’s proceedings by thanking the counsels, expressing appreciation for the “kind gesture of working together in collaboration and in the spirit of the service of the people of this country. We will consider those submissions and we will deliver a ruling.”

The Supreme Court is set to deliver its decision on Friday, January 23, 2026.

The post “I Have Reformed”: Ahmednasir Apologizes to Supreme Court, Promises Respectful Conduct as He Seeks Ban Reversal appeared first on Insider Bits News.