Seasoned lawyers give different opinions over a ban placed of Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi by the Supreme Court on Thursday. The court says Ahmednasir has been consistent in making foul remarks and attacks against the SC and its judges.
“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,” reads part of the strong-worded the letter seen by BRK.
The Supreme Court accuses Ahmednasir of running a defaming campaign against the institution and its seven-judge bench using social media posts and during media interviews, with endless claims of corruption and being incompetent.
“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 letter says.
While a section of top lawyers feel it’s unconstitutional and illegal, others say all lawyers are expected to respect the courts and by attacking the institution, one calls for punishment which includes the decision taken by the apex court on SC Ahmednasir.
Law Society of Kenya President Eric Theuri says; The Supreme Court has irredeemably lost it on this one. The Court cannot violate a consumer’s rights by dictating who should appear before them. The decision has no basis in law, is illegal, irregular & paints the Court as a purveyor of injustice.
He further pushes for an immediate retraction & apology from the Supreme Court.
Nelson Havi also supports Mr. Theuri’s opinion, saying the decision to bar Ahmednasir Abdullahi SC and his firm from appearing before the Supreme Court is unlawful and unconstitutional.
“It will be quashed by the High Court, further embarrass the besieged Chief Justice and dent the reputation of all 7 Judges of that Court. The decision is administrative and not judicial. It is not binding on Courts subordinate to the Supreme Court. Fundamentally, the decision is liable to judicial review by the High Court. The Chief Justice and the 6 Judges have initiated their apocalypse,” Havi says.
On the other hand, lawyer Donald B. Kipkorir differs in opinion, he says no lawyer is allowed to mock the courts and attack the institution and go scot-free. Further, he says the Supreme Court has the powers as stipulated in the Advocates Act to punish ‘rebellious’ lawyers.
“The Advocates Act gives the High Court & all courts exercising jurisdiction as High Court to suo moto or an application the power to discipline, ban or have a lawyer struck off the Roll of Advocates. This is residual power that always existed but Judges have been shy to exercise,” lawyer Kipkorir says.
He adds that a lawyer cannot be allowed to accuse Judges of corruption, ineptitude, sexual escapades or alcoholism.
“A lawyer cannot make such allegations of extreme malice & malevolence and get away. Judges must protect their Courts or they sink. Non-lawyers however can get away but not lawyers. Section 27 of The Supreme Court Act gives the Supreme Court powers of the High Court … Section 3 of The Appellate Jurisdiction Act gives the Court of Appeal powers of the High Court …. High Court has power to deal with errant Advocates appearing it without having go take them through Advocates Complaints Commission,” Kipkorir says.
