LSK Condemns Supreme Court’s Ahmednasir Ban as Unlawful

In a recent development, the President of the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), Eric Theuri, has strongly condemned the decision by the Supreme Court to prohibit Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi from representing clients before the apex court. The LSK President labeled the move as illegal and asserted that the Supreme Court lacks the legal authority to bar a duly authorized advocate recognized by the LSK.

In a statement issued on Friday, Theuri emphasized that every individual has a constitutional right to choose their counsel. He argued that the Supreme Court’s decision violated consumers’ rights by dictating who can appear before them. The LSK President described the decision as having no basis in law, being illegal and irregular, and portraying the Court as a purveyor of injustice.

Furthermore, Theuri contended that the Supreme Court’s decision directly contradicts the principle of the right to be heard, which is a fundamental element of any fair decision. He expressed concern about the dangerous precedent set by the decision, suggesting that it opens the door for courts to bar individuals they dislike.

The Law Society of Kenya, under Theuri’s leadership, has made it clear that it will not tolerate any encroachment by the apex court. The statement indicated that the LSK would formally request the institution to retract Ahmednasir’s exile and issue an apology to the senior advocate.

The Supreme Court’s decision, made public on Thursday, explicitly prohibited Ahmednasir Abdullahi and his legal team from filing cases before the court. The court cited Ahmednasir’s history of making disparaging remarks about the institution and its judges as the basis for the unprecedented move.

A strongly-worded letter from Supreme Court Registrar L.M Wachira stated, “It is the decision of this Court, that henceforth and from the date of this Communication, you shall have no audience before the Court, either by yourself, through an employee of your law firm, or any other person holding brief for you, or acting pursuant to your instructions.”

The letter further highlighted the impact of the decision on clients who may have instructed Ahmednasir to represent them before the Court. The court deemed it untenable for individuals to seek justice in an institution and before judges whose reputation and integrity Ahmednasir had consistently criticized.

Responding to the Supreme Court’s decision, Ahmednasir Abdullahi took to a public platform to term the ban against him and his law firm as “a badge of honour.” The seemingly unbothered lawyer went on to describe the Supreme Court as “corrupt,” an allegation believed to be a significant factor contributing to his blacklisting.

As the legal community closely watches this unfolding saga, the clash between the Law Society of Kenya and the Supreme Court raises critical questions about the boundaries of the court’s authority in regulating legal practitioners and the impact of such decisions on the broader legal landscape in Kenya.