The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has urged the National Police Service (NPS) to restore the security detail of Justice Lawrence Mugambi.

Justice Mugambi’s security detail was withdrawn on Sunday, September 15, 2024, days after he sentenced the acting Inspector General of Police Gilbert Masengeli to six months in jail over contempt of court.

In a statement on Monday, September 16, 2024, LSK President Faith Odhiambo termed the withdrawal as a violation of the rule of law and the principle of judicial independence.

“It is our solemn duty to address the disturbing developments surrounding Justice Lawrence Mugambi, a sitting Judge of the High Court, whose security detail was recently withdrawn following his issuance of a habeas corpus order in the case of Law Society of Kenya & 3 Others v. Inspector General of Police & 4 Others, Petition No. E436 of 2024, which culminated in contempt of court proceedings, where the Acting Inspector General was subsequently found in contempt and sentenced on the 13th September, 2024,” Odhiambo stated.

“This action by the National Police Service constitutes an egregious violation of the rule of law and the principle of judicial independence as enshrined in our Constitution. The LSK strongly condemns this retaliatory measure, which undermines not only the authority of the Judiciary but also the constitutional protections granted to all Kenyans.”

This comes moments after Chief Justice Martha Koome confirmed the withdrawal of the High Court judge’s security detail, terming it as a deliberate and punitive measure that represents a direct assault on judicial independence, an affront to the rule of law, and a violation of the principles enshrined in the Kenyan Constitution.

In concurrence with the Chief Justice, Odhiambo emphasized that judicial officers must be free to make decisions based on the law, without fear of coercion, intimidation, or interference.

“Article 160 of the Constitution of Kenya guarantees judicial independence, stating that in the exercise of judicial authority, the Judiciary shall be subject only to the Constitution and the law, and shall not be subject to the control or direction of any person or authority,” Odhiambo added.

“The withdrawal of security for a Judge, especially in response to their lawful execution of judicial duties, is a direct violation of this constitutional provision. Judicial officers must be free to make decisions based on the law, without fear of coercion, intimidation, or interference. Any act that seeks to influence judicial outcomes through intimidation poses a grave threat to the administration of justice.”

Mugambi jails Masengeli

Justice Mugambi sentenced Masengeli to six months imprisonment on Friday, September 13, 2024, days after he was convicted of contempt of court.

On September 9, 2024, Judge Mugambi said that Masengeli had failed to honour the summons from the court.

Mugambi added that Masengeli’s actions amounted to willful disobedience that undermines the supreme law and administration of justice. 

While sentencing him, the judge further ordered Masengeli to surrender himself to the Commissioner General of Prisons to serve his sentence.

Additionally, Mugambi said that in the event he fails to surrender himself to prison, the Cabinet Secretary for Interior must take steps to ensure he is committed to prison to serve his sentence.

“The continued defiance of the habeas corpus order by failing to produce the individuals named in the case and the contempt of court proceedings that followed reflect a dangerous trend of law enforcement disregarding judicial orders. This is not only unlawful but also sets a dangerous precedent for impunity, where state institutions operate without accountability,” Odhiambo added.

It is important to stress that any party dissatisfied with a court ruling should pursue redress through the appellate jurisdiction, rather than resorting to punitive or retaliatory actions against the Judiciary. Article 165 of the Constitution outlines the procedure for appealing to higher courts, and any grievances with a judicial decision must be addressed within this framework.”

She says the intimidation of a judge has far-reaching implications beyond the individual involved, posing a significant risk to the administration of justice, as it suggests that judicial decisions can be influenced by external pressures rather than by the law.

“The erosion of judicial independence undermines the foundation of our constitutional democracy, where rights are safeguarded by an impartial and independent judiciary.”

LSK has called upon the National Police Service and all relevant state actors to immediately reinstate the security detail of Justice Mugambi.

“We also urge them to comply with the orders of the court, including the habeas corpus directive, as failure to do so is not only contemptuous but also indicative of a disregard for constitutional principles. Further, we call on the Executive and all arms of government to respect the principle of separation of powers and to uphold the rule of law,” she added.

“Judicial independence is not merely a privilege for the Judiciary but a cornerstone of justice for all Kenyans. The LSK assures all Kenyans that it remains committed to defending judicial independence, the rule of law, and constitutionalism.”