When former apellate judge Samuel Bosire submitted his report on the Goldenberg inquiry, he wrote an appendage that was outside his team’s terms of reference.

Bosire was appointed to chair the Goldenberg commission probing the loss of billions of shillings in dubious gold exports by a company owned by businessman Kamlesh Pattni. In his report, Bosire attached an unsolicited advisory to President Mwai Kibaki that in future, such a commission should not be chaired by an appellate judge.

The idea was that the report was certain to be the subject of litigation in the lower courts and such an arrangement created a window for a frightening and awkward prospect that decisions by a team led by a judge of a superior court may be overturned by his juniors.

That is exactly what happened. Gatekeepers for powerful individuals in the constitutional division of the High Court declared huge sections of the Goldenberg report incompetent, illegal and unconstitutional. It ended up putting an indelible egg on Bosire’s face.

That is why we think that Supreme Court judges should have acted with restraint on their unprecedented decision to ban Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi from appearing before them. The Supreme Court justices accuse the rubble-rousing lawyer of making consistent disparaging remarks against the institution and its members on various media platforms.

The ban also applies to his law firm including his employees from filing cases before it. The decision has raised debate and questions among lawyers and court users. For whatever transgressions, did the judges condemn the lawyer unheard? Is it the responsibility of the court to discipline and regulate the practice of law?

There is debate on whether the ban amounts to a gag order by an institution that reprimands others unfettered but seems too thin-skinned when subjected to an iota of scrutiny. How fair is the ban that lawyers in Abdullahi’s law firm who are not party to his altercations with the judges cannot represent their clients in the court?

Will Abdullahi be required to refund fees to clients who had given him instructions to argue their matters before the Supreme Court? It will also be rather awkward if the matter is litigated and rebuked by judges of lower courts, a situation most likely to happen to the detriment of the Supreme Court’s standing.