Judge's Boycott: Divided lawyers vs a united Judiciary

On Thursday, lawyer Nelson Havi logged in to the Nyandarua High Court in a bid to enforce a targeted boycott as demanded by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) to its members.

Havi was in Justice Dorah Chepkwony’s courtroom, and he explained that he was there to ensure that no lawyer appeared before the Judge. Nevertheless, there were lawyers already waiting for their clients’ cases to be mentioned or heard.

“Judge, you are sitting despite facing serious questions before the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), and I humbly request that you adjourn court because the court is sitting,” demanded Havi.

The judge’s response to Havi’s submissions, however, shed a different perspective on the ongoing standoff between LSK and the Judiciary.

Justice Chepkwony said that although she had been put in the LSK red list, she never sued the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). At the same time, she explained that there was no communication from the Judiciary leadership to adjourn or put aside cases.

“Although the High Court gave orders allowing the petition before it, the JSC filed an appeal which stayed those orders, and since then, the JSC summoned me to appear before them, which I did. The party which filed the petition then sought an adjournment without informing me, saying he needed to file a further affidavit,” said Justice Chepkony, adding that she has to date not been served with the documents to allow her to proceed.

“My employer has not asked me not to sit,” she added.

When she was unmoved, Havi turned to the lawyer, calling them by name and demanding that they should leave.

The moment encapsulated a broader fracture that has split the legal profession and placed the Judiciary under intense public scrutiny. The boycott enjoys strong support from senior figures such as LSK President Charles Kanjama and Ahmednasir Abdullahi, who argue that persistent graft, misconduct, and ethical lapses within the courts demand radical action.

They see the boycott as a necessary instrument to force a clean-up and restore public confidence.

Yet other lawyers, including Danstan Omari, view the exercise as misguided and ultimately futile. They contend that advocates themselves frequently obtain court orders that shield them from investigation and disciplinary action, making the moral high ground claimed by the LSK difficult to sustain.

Chief Justice Martha Koome responded with a detailed rebuttal. She revealed that she had met the LSK leadership five times, detailing concrete progress made during those consultations. Implementation, she acknowledged, is a continuous journey requiring sustained attention.

She gently reminded the society that it had undertaken to furnish specific evidence of alleged misconduct and corruption, alongside guidelines on responsible social media use by members — information that had not yet been delivered.

While affirming the LSK’s right to speak on matters of justice administration, the Chief Justice insisted that public communication must remain accurate, responsible, and fair. It should separate mere allegations from established facts, avoid prejudicing ongoing investigations or proceedings, and uphold the dignity and due-process rights of everyone involved.

Public accusations, no matter how grave, could not substitute for proper constitutional and statutory processes.

Insiders from the JSC, the Judiciary, and the Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association painted a picture of mutual frustration. They accused the LSK of withholding crucial evidence while loudly criticising others.

The society, for its part, had directed members to avoid all judges and magistrates who had sued the JSC or the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission. Lawyers could file cases at the registries but were instructed to stay away from actual hearings and mentions.

The Supreme Court found itself particularly in the crosshairs. According to the LSK, nearly all its judges, except Justice Mohamed Warsame and the recently recruited Justice William Ouko, continue in office only because of court orders restraining the JSC from processing complaints against them.

The boycott therefore extends to all hearings and applications before the apex court, sparing only registry services.

A senior JSC commissioner, speaking on condition of anonymity, revealed that another high-level meeting between the parties was scheduled for July 31. He recalled earlier agreements reached during Faith Odhiambo’s leadership of the LSK.

The society had promised to compile a comprehensive list of judges and magistrates implicated in graft or gross misconduct and submit it to both the Judiciary and the Commission. Odhiambo had even circulated a formal request for evidence in February 2024, yet little materialised.

The two sides had also agreed to establish integrity committees at every court station, with active LSK participation, to resolve complaints at the grassroots level before escalation.“Why are they not looking in the mirror?” the commissioner asked pointedly.

He noted that lawyers often act as conduits in corrupt transactions, quoting inflated fees and “facilitation” money to clients while pointing fingers at the bench. “For every case of corruption,” he observed, “there is a lawyer.”

KMJA officials struck a similarly defensive tone. They insisted that judges and magistrates, like all citizens, retain their constitutional rights upon assuming office. Denying them the right to be heard would set a dangerous precedent and undermine the rule of law. The officials highlighted what they saw as irony: the LSK had itself participated in cases where judges obtained orders protecting them from disciplinary processes.

 They cited the long-running rivalry between Nelson Havi and Allen Gichuhi as an example of advocates benefiting from the very court orders they now criticise. One official described the situation as “legal goonism” — an attempt to intimidate judges into granting relief to which they might not otherwise be entitled.

KMJA Chairman Justice Peter Mulwa appealed for structured dialogue. He warned that sustained confrontation would hurt ordinary litigants the most. While judges support greater transparency through performance reporting, he stressed the need to address identified gaps first.

He urged the LSK to channel complaints through formal avenues — the JSC and the Judiciary Ombudsman — rather than public naming and shaming, particularly when matters remain before the courts.The current crisis represents the sharpest escalation yet in long-simmering tensions.

Judiciary insiders credit CJ Koome with proactive engagement, including multiple meetings this year alone. Efforts were made to separate issues the Judiciary could resolve internally from those falling under the JSC’s mandate.

Nevertheless, the LSK maintains that systemic problems — corruption, abuse of office, unethical conduct, and chronic delays — continue to erode public trust in the third arm of government. Delays in the hearing and determination of cases remain a particularly thorny issue.

The LSK blames judicial officers for frequent adjournments and tardy delivery of rulings. The Judiciary counters that lawyers bear equal responsibility through their own practices. Additional grievances include alleged harassment of advocates and recurring disruptions to the electronic case-filing system.

When the boycott was launched on Wednesday, it left many litigants — especially those newly arrested — in a precarious position. Some had to represent themselves or endure further postponements while waiting for the dispute to resolve.

The targeted boycott against specific judges continues, creating a patchwork of access to justice across the country.

At its heart, the conflict raises profound questions about accountability, independence, and the rule of law in Kenya. The LSK seeks swift and visible reforms. Judicial officers demand adherence to due process and constitutional protections.

Meanwhile, ordinary citizens watch as the machinery of justice grinds slower, caught between a bar and a bench locked in a bitter contest of wills. Whether dialogue or confrontation will ultimately prevail remains uncertain, but the cost of continued impasse grows heavier with each passing day.