Photos posted on CJ X account show legal heavyweights Philip Murgor SC, Nelson Havi, and Law Society of Kenya President Faith Odhiambo, who many says may have brokered the historic truce between Koome and Ahmednasir.

This wasn’t just another routine meeting. This was the first face-to-face encounter between the CJ and Ahmednasir since the Supreme Court’s controversial ban two years ago, a ban that had sent shockwaves through the legal profession and sparked fierce debates about judicial overreach and freedom of practice.

 “Chief Justice Martha Koome convened a consultative meeting with senior lawyers, including Philip Murgor, Ahmednassir Abdullahi, Nelson Havi, and LSK President Faith Odhiambo, to discuss access to justice,” the message posted on CJ account states.

“The engagement focused on collaboration, tackling corruption, and removing barriers to strengthen efficiency, integrity, and public confidence in the justice system.”

On January 23, 2024, the Supreme Court took the unprecedented step of barring Ahmednasir, along with his partners and associates, from appearing before it.

The decision was met with disbelief and outrage in legal circles. How could Kenya’s apex court ban an entire law firm without what many considered justifiable cause?

For two years, the firebrand lawyer Ahmednasir continued his crusade from the sidelines, launching blistering attacks on what he termed “JurisPESA”,his provocative label for alleged corruption in the judiciary.

His social media posts became legendary, mixing legal analysis with scorching criticism that made judges squirm and the public pay attention.

When the Supreme Court finally lifted the ban, thanks to intervention by Paul Muite SC, Fred Ngatia SC, and Dennis Mosota, many expected Ahmednasir to declare victory and return triumphantly to practice.

Instead, he threw down a gauntlet that left even his supporters stunned.

“I have decided NOT TO PRACTICE before the court,” he declared, outlining three non-negotiable demands: an admission of wrongdoing by the Court, addressing his grievances about judicial integrity, and meaningful institutional reforms.

His reasoning? “If I go back to practice before the Supreme Court, who is left to fight against JurisPESA in our courts?”

It was vintage Ahmednasir, defiant, principled, and unwilling to be appeased by what he called “a ploy.”

But then came the CJ’s move. The consultative meeting wasn’t just about mending fences, it was about confronting the elephants in the room: corruption allegations, barriers to justice, and the erosion of public confidence in the courts.

The agenda was ambitious: strengthening collaboration between the LSK and the Judiciary, addressing systemic barriers to justice delivery, and exploring solutions to enhance efficiency, integrity, and the rule of law.

By inviting Ahmednasir to the table alongside other critics like laywer Havi, CJ Koome sent a powerful message: dissent would be heard, not silenced.

The meeting concluded with both sides acknowledging the need for dialogue, though the road ahead remains uncertain.

Ahmednasir’s closing challenge to the CJ, offering his experience as former LSK Chairman and JSC member to help reform the courts, hangs in the air like an unanswered question.

Can the Judiciary reform itself from within? Will the Supreme Court acknowledge its mistakes? And most intriguingly, will Ahmednasir eventually return to practice before the very court he’s sworn to reform?

For now, Kenya’s legal community watches with bated breath as two formidable forces, one wielding the gavel, the other wielding the pen, navigate from feud to what might become the most consequential collaboration in the Judiciary’s fight against corruption.

The war against “JurisPESA” has found an unlikely battlefield: the negotiating table.

The post From Feud to Dialogue: CJ Koome, Havi and Ahmednasir’s Historic Reunion After Two Years appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In a ruling delivered by Justice Samwel Mohochi, the court made it clear that public entities may only hire external legal counsel with formal, express approval from the Attorney-General or relevant county authorities, where in-house legal officers exist.

“Until the respondents demonstrate that the engagement of external counsel is necessary, justified, and constitutes prudent use of public funds, the conservatory orders will remain in force,” Justice Mohochi said.

“This court will not lift the orders at this stage, pending full evidence from the Attorney-General, state corporations, and county governments of how they use prudent they use the resources.”

The ruling follows an attempt by over 100 lawyers led by LSK President Faith Odhiambo to have the orders vacated, arguing that outsourcing legal services is lawful and often necessary for complex matters requiring specialised expertise.

The judge, however, declined their application, noting that respondents had failed to provide sufficient material to justify the continued engagement of private advocates.

Under the court orders, effective January 12, 2026, no public entity shall procure, continue to procure, or engage private lawyers where in-house legal officers exist unless the engagement is formally approved and properly justified.

Similarly, no public officer may release or approve funds for external legal services without fully meeting the strict conditions set by the court.

For national government bodies, formal approval must come from the Attorney-General, while county governments are required to obtain approval from their County Executive Committees or a recommendation from the County Attorney, confirming that the engagement is necessary and that public funds are used prudently.

The court further clarified that any engagement of private lawyers must be supported by formal justification.

This includes detailing the nature of the case and the subject matter involved, the expected duration of the proceedings, the fee structure and overall financial implications, and a demonstration that the matter requires specialised expertise not available within the entity’s in-house legal team.

Justice Mohochi stressed that the orders do not affect ongoing legal matters or instructions given prior to January 12, 2026, which may proceed unaffected.

The ruling stems from a petition challenging what the court described as the runaway and routine outsourcing of legal services by public institutions, which the petitioners argue has wasted taxpayers’ and pensioners’ funds.

The petitioners, including Magare Gikenyi and Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah, contend that the practice violates Articles 1, 3, 10, 201(a) and (d), and 227(1) of the Constitution.

The court has scheduled the matter for inter partes hearing and further directions on January 30, 2026, when respondents are expected to present evidence justifying the engagement of private advocates.

The post High Court Declines to Lift Orders Barring Government Entities from Hiring Private Lawyers appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In a statement released on Sunday, the LSK said it was “deeply concerned by images of Police officers lobbing teargas at congregants taking part in a church service in Othaya,” describing the incident as a grave abuse of state power.

The lawyers’ body faulted the National Police Service (NPS) for what it termed an unjustified and excessive use of force against civilians, including children.

“The indiscriminate use of violent force against church-going citizens, including children, offends every constitutional principle under which the National Police Service is bound to operate,” the statement read.

LSK said the police action amounted to a direct assault on multiple constitutional rights.

“This onslaught on the right to religion, freedom of association, human dignity, freedom and security of the person and the right of children to be protected from all forms of violence is detestable,” the Society added.

Footage circulating online showed panicked worshippers fleeing the church compound as teargas engulfed the area, disrupting the service and raising concerns about the safety of civilians in places of worship.

The Society further warned that such incidents risk eroding public trust in state institutions at a sensitive political moment.

“We condemn this incident, which betrays the Kenyan people’s collective call for an end to police brutality and indiscipline,” LSK said

“There was no ascertainable threat posed by church congregants against peace, law and order to warrant such a brazen attack.”

According to the lawyers’ body, the incident poses “a damning threat of undermining tolerance and cohesion as we approach another high-stakes electioneering period.”

LSK has now demanded accountability from the police leadership.

“We call upon the National Police Service to issue an immediate, clear explanation of the circumstances leading up to the abhorrent events in Othaya, and a full report on the actions it intends to take against the perpetrators,” the statement said.

The Society also announced it is mobilising legal support for affected members of the public.

“We will be coordinating with our advocates on the ground to understand the full extent of violations that occurred, and establish whether there are any members of the public in need of legal support following the incident,” it added.

As of publication, the National Police Service had not issued a detailed public response explaining the deployment of teargas at the church.

The post LSK Slams Police for ‘Detestable’ Use of Force After Teargas Fired Inside Othaya Church 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.

In a press statement dated January 13, 2026, LSK President Faith Odhiambo warned that the legal profession would not tolerate the abuse of judicial powers.

The controversy stems from Nakuru Petition E001 of 2026, where the High Court granted ex-parte conservatory orders that could effectively cut off private practitioners from public sector work.

LSK views this as the culmination of years of attempts to restrict lawyers’ access to government contracts.

The battle began in July 2020 when the Attorney General issued a directive requiring written approval before state departments could hire external legal counsel.

LSK challenged this through judicial review, and in July 2023, Justice Jairus Ngaah ruled in their favor.

The judge emphasized that procurement must be fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost effective, noting these values would be undermined if such a task was left to the whim of an individual.”

Despite this victory, a fresh challenge emerged in 2024 when petitioners sought to restrain county governments from hiring private law firms.

A Senate committee’s March 2025 report acknowledged that completely prohibiting outsourcing would violate constitutional provisions and procurement laws.

Both the Office of the Attorney General Act and Office of the County Attorney Act explicitly allow retention of external counsel when necessary.

Now, several petitioners led Busia Senator okiya Omtatah have returned to court in Nakuru, citing concerns about high legal fees and fiscal responsibility.

LSK dismissed these arguments as lacking novelty, calling them symbolic of a tired rhetoric against a profession that unreservedly dedicates itself to upholding constitutional values.

The Society emphasized that private lawyers fill critical gaps in the public sector by handling conflicts of interest cases, providing independent expertise, and managing workload excesses.

Legal fees, they noted, are strictly regulated and subject to court taxation when disputes arise.

LSK argued the ex-parte orders violate Article 50 of the Constitution, which protects the right to representation of choice.

The orders also contradict the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, which bars courts from refusing to recognize lawyers’ rights to appear for clients.

Most troublingly, the retroactive nature of the orders threatens to suspend payment of lawful dues already assessed by courts.

The Odhiambo cited other recent examples of concerning judicial conduct, including Justice Bahati Mwamuye’s reversal of orders halting police recruitment and a three-judge bench suspending the Judicial Service Commission’s constitutional functions.

“We are apprehensive that the current pattern of abuse of Judicial powers threatens to spark outrage among both the public and our members,” Odhiambo stated.

She warned that unless the trend is stopped, LSK is “prepared to agitate for a radical surgery as a means to uphold our Constitution.”

LSK announced it is documenting instances of judicial misconduct and has filed an application to review and set aside the Nakuru orders.

While committed to serving the public, the Society pledged equal commitment to protecting its members’ livelihoods and the legal practice environment.

The post Law Society of Kenya Condemns Judicial Overreach in Battle Over Private Legal Practice appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In a landmark judgment delivered virtually from the Milimani Law Courts, Justice Lawrence Mugambi ruled that the order, which sought to regulate the management and terms of service for staff and board members of state corporations, illegally usurps the PSC’s constitutional mandate and undermines the principle of separation of powers enshrined in kenya’s 2010 Constitution.

The Executive Order, issued in May 2024 through Gazette Notice No. 6265, directed all boards of state corporations and Cabinet Secretaries to implement new guidelines on management and terms of service.

The Law Society of Kenya (LSK), which filed the petition, argued that the order encroached on the PSC’s exclusive constitutional role and violated the Statutory Instruments Act by being promulgated without public participation or Parliamentary approval.

“This is, without any hesitation, a direct infringement of the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional,” Justice Mugambi emphasized.

The judge further explained that the President’s executive powers cannot override the Constitution:

“The fact that these guidelines were issued as an Executive Order under the hand of the President cannot cure their unconstitutionality. Even in exercise of executive functions, the President must act in line with the Constitution or as authorized by national legislation,” he ruled.

The court highlighted that Sections 5(3) and 27(c) of the State Corporations Act, relied upon to justify the Executive Order, conflict with Article 234(2) of the Constitution, which vests the PSC with authority over the establishment, appointment, and terms of service for public officers.

Justice Mugambi warned that allowing such provisions to operate would erode the independence of constitutional commissions and weaken the merit, professionalism, and impartiality of public service.

“Permitting nibbling of its constitutionally protected mandate will increasingly weaken the Public Service Commission and leave it exposed to external interference,” he stated.

“The framers of the Constitution intended the PSC to operate as a bulwark protecting merit, professionalism, and impartiality in public service.”

The  Court issued a series of declarations and orders, including quashing Executive Order No. 3 of 2024 and the accompanying Guidelines on Management and Terms of Service.

It also declared Sections 5(3) and 27(c) of the State Corporations Act unconstitutional, affirmed that State Corporations and Public Universities are subject to the PSC’s constitutional mandate, and ruled that the National Treasury and other bodies cannot exercise powers vested in the Salaries and Remuneration Commission under Article 230 of the Constitution.

“This being a public interest litigation, I make no orders as to costs,” Justice Mugambi added.

The post Court Declares Ruto’s Executive Order on State Corporations Unconstitutional appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In a petition filed before Justice Chacha Mwita at the Milimani Law Courts, the LSK is asking the court to order the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), the Registrar of Political Parties, the Attorney General, the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC), and the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to formulate and enforce a code of ethics for Members of Parliament.

The LSK argues that despite the existence of Chapter 6 of the Constitution, enforcement remains weak, and leaders with questionable integrity continue to occupy public office without consequence.

“Kenyans deserve leaders who are beyond reproach. The time has come to breathe life into Chapter 6 of the Constitution,” said LSK

“We are asking the court to compel these agencies to act not as passive bystanders but as active defenders of constitutional ethics and governance.”

The petition specifically seeks a declaration that Kenyans have not only a right but a constitutional duty to submit information about the lack of integrity of individuals seeking or already holding public office.

The LSK argues that such information, once verified, should automatically disqualify the implicated individuals from holding office.

In its pleadings, the LSK has also requested that the court orders the respondents to receive, verify, and act on integrity-related evidence submitted by members of the public, especially in instances where the oversight bodies have themselves failed or declined to act.

In a significant proposal that could shift the burden of accountability, the LSK wants the court to declare that any such information submitted to the relevant agencies, once proven to be accurate, should be considered ipso facto proof of lack of integrity.

Further, the petition asks the court to direct the respondents to verify the authenticity of such public submissions within 20 days of receipt.

If no action is taken within that timeframe, the LSK proposes that the submissions be treated as fully verified and actionable.

Perhaps most strikingly, the LSK is also asking for an order that would bar the Salaries and Remuneration Commission, as well as any other relevant state agencies, from continuing to pay salaries or allowances to elected leaders who are proven to have breached integrity standards under the Constitution.

According to the LSK, continued remuneration of such individuals constitutes a misuse of public funds and undermines the rule of law.

“Our prayer is not just for the courts, it is for the public, the voters, and our future. We are seeking to reclaim our institutions from individuals who have repeatedly betrayed the public trust,” the lawyer’s body says.

“We want to close the gap between what the Constitution promises and the reality that Kenyans live with every election cycle.”

Following the filing, Justice Mwita directed the LSK to serve the petition and accompanying documents to the EACC, the Registrar of Political Parties, the Attorney General, the IEBC, and the SRC.

The court ordered all respondents to file their responses within seven days of being served, covering both the main petition and the interim application for conservatory orders.

The matter has been scheduled for mention on September 29, 2025, when the court is expected to issue further directions, including on whether interim conservatory measures will be granted to temporarily halt certain actions or payments pending the outcome of the case.

The LSK’s suit comes at a time of mounting public pressure over the failure of key institutions to enforce leadership and integrity laws.

Despite repeated promises by state agencies and electoral bodies, several individuals facing corruption charges, ethical violations, or unresolved integrity questions continue to hold or seek public office without obstruction.

“We are not asking for new laws. We are simply asking the courts to ensure that the existing legal and constitutional framework is enforced with the seriousness it deserves, LSK says

If successful, the case could mark a watershed moment in the application of Chapter 6 and the role of citizen participation in upholding ethical governance in Kenya.

The post LSK sues to block corrupt leaders from office and pay over Chapter 6 breaches. appeared first on Insider Bits News.

The petitioners, led by former Chief Justice Dr. Willy Mutunga and former Justice Minister Martha Karua, claim they were denied entry into Tanzania on May 18 and 19, 2025, despite meeting all legal travel requirements and holding valid documents under the visa-free regime enjoyed by East African Community (EAC) citizens.

Filed at the EACJ sub-registry in Nairobi, the petition seeks a declaration that the actions of Tanzanian authorities violated the EAC Treaty and Common Market Protocol.

The applicants are also seeking compensation for emotional distress, travel-related expenses, and reputational damage, along with the removal of any adverse immigration records from their passports.

“We had complied with all travel requirements and were traveling under the visa-free movement agreement enjoyed by East African citizens,” the petition states.

“This was not just a violation of individual rights, but an attack on the very fabric of the East African Community the freedom of movement, the rule of law, and democratic accountability.”

According to court documents, Karua, lawyer Gloria Kimani, and journalist Lynn Ngugi were the first to be detained on May 18 at Julius Nyerere International Airport.

The group was part of an international observer mission planning to attend the public hearing of Lissu’s treason case scheduled for May 19.

Their passports were seized, they were held for hours, and ultimately forced to return to Nairobi.

The following day, Dr. Mutunga, activist Hussein Khalid, and journalist Hanifa Adan faced a similar experience. They were detained upon arrival, denied entry, and deported without explanation.

In sworn affidavits, both Mutunga and Karua described the experience as degrading and unlawful.

“We were not attempting to disrupt anything,” said Mutunga. “We were there to observe, as a basic act of solidarity and democratic vigilance. Our deportation reflects Tanzania’s growing intolerance to scrutiny.”

“We were held without cause, treated with hostility, and bundled onto planes like criminals,” added Karua. “This is not just about us — it’s about the integrity of the East African Community and the rule of law.”

The petition, filed with the support of the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), East Africa Law Society (EALS), and Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU), accuses Tanzania of violating Articles 6(d), 7(2), and 104 of the EAC Treaty, which uphold democratic governance, human rights, and the free movement of people across member states. Article 7 of the Common Market Protocol is also cited, as it obliges member states to eliminate unjustified barriers to movement.

“The Respondent’s actions infringed the Applicants’ legitimate expectations of civic participation in democratic governance and are inconsistent with the principle of good governance,” the court papers read.

LSK President Faith Odhiambo, who accompanied the petitioners to court, condemned the deportations as an act of political suppression.

“Tanzania’s conduct was deliberate, discriminatory, and dangerous. No member state should unilaterally suspend rights guaranteed under regional agreements,” said Odhiambo.

The applicants are urging the regional court to not only issue compensatory and declaratory relief but also to impose a restraining order barring Tanzania from carrying out similar actions against EAC citizens in the future.

“The EAC cannot function if member states weaponize their borders to shield injustice,” said Mutunga.

“This is a test for the region’s commitment to democratic accountability.”

The post Karua, Mutunga Take Tanzania to Regional Court Over Deportation and Entry Denial appeared first on Insider Bits News.