The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has strongly condemned the National Police Service’s decision to withdraw the security detail assigned to Chief Justice Martha Koome.

In a press statement issued on January 24, 2024, LSK President Faith Odhiambo described the action as undermining judicial independence.

“The Law Society of Kenya has taken note of a letter from the Chief Justice, the Honourable Lady Justice Martha Koome, addressed to the Cabinet Secretary for the Ministry of Interior and the Inspector General of Police. By the said letter, the Chief Justice revealed a concerning decision by the National Police Service to withdraw the security detail attached to her office and apparent weakening of the Judiciary Police Unit,” the statement reads.

LSK further criticized the decision, asserting that it reflects systemic and administrative lapses within the National Police Service.

“We condemn this unfortunate move and affirm that whether by omission or commission, the said situation is unacceptable and indicates grave systemic and administrative lapses within the National Police Service,” Faith Odhiambo said.

While acknowledging an explanation from the inspector general of police, the LSK argued that the security of the chief justice is a serious matter that should not be subject to lapses in communication or coordination.

“The explanation that has been given for the withdrawal of the security detail of the Chief Justice is unsatisfactory. We call on the
Inspector General of the National Police Service to be diligent, honest, and faithful to his oath of office in his leadership of the police,” Faith Odhiambo said in another statement released on her X account on January 24, 2025.

Additionally, the society raised concerns about the apparent weakening of the Judiciary Police Unit and how security withdrawals were conducted.

“The complaint raised by the Chief Justice indicates an insufferable failure on the part of the National Police Service which must be rectified promptly,” the statement continued.

Judicial independence

LSK emphasized that the constitution establishes independent government institutions with equal status and criticized the recent actions of the police, which they feel operate as an extension of the Executive.

They expressed alarm at a troubling trend of sporadic security withdrawals.

“The mistaken perception that the Judiciary is subordinate to the other arms of government is a historic bastardization of the principle of separation of powers, which must be deconstructed,” LSK stated.

The society warned that this move could potentially intimidate judges, especially in light of recent attacks on judicial officers.

Previous incidents

In September 2024, Justice Lawrence Mugambi had his security withdrawn following a ruling on September 13, 2024, in which he found the former acting Inspector General of Police in contempt of court and sentenced him to six months in prison.

During a press briefing on September 16, 2024, Chief Justice Martha Koome announced that Justice Mugambi’s bodyguard and driver, who is also a police officer, were ordered to report back to police headquarters for instructions.

Requests by the Judicial Service Commission to have them reinstated were not addressed.

“This is a direct assault on judicial independence and an affront to the rule of law. Security of the judges is an accrued benefit that cannot be withdrawn,” Koome said.

Describing the withdrawal as intimidation, Koome urged the National Police Service to restore Justice Mugambi’s security immediately.

“The act of withdrawing the security of a sitting judge, following a judicial decision that displeased certain authorities, is deeply concerning. It sends a chilling message to the Judiciary and the public at large: that those entrusted with upholding justice and safeguarding our rights can be intimidated, bullied, or retaliated against for their rulings,” Koome said.

The chief justice emphasised that Article 160 of the Constitution safeguards judicial independence, stating that the Judiciary must not be subject to the control or direction of any individual or authority.

She asserted that any benefits or conditions related to a judge’s position, including their security, should not be changed to their disadvantage, especially in retaliation for the lawful performance of their judicial duties.

“Security for judges is an established benefit that cannot be revoked arbitrarily,” she said.