Listen to This Article Enhance your reading experience by listening to this article.

A petition was yesterday filed before the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) seeking the removal of Chief Justice Martha Koome from her position.

The petition, lodged by lawyer Christopher Rosana, accuses Koome of severe incompetence over the decision to ban Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi from appearing before the Supreme Court.

The petition’s central issue revolves around a decision made by the Supreme Court of Kenya on January 18.’

On that day, the Court issued a directive barring Abdullahi from appearing before it.

The directive, communicated via a letter from the Court’s Registrar, Letizia Wachira, effectively stripped the lawyer of his right of audience. Not only was Advocate barred from appearing, but the ban extended to anyone representing him or acting on his instructions.

Rosana argues that as the head of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Koome bears ultimate responsibility for the controversial decision.

According to the petition, the Chief Justice’s actions demonstrate a grave lack of foresight and competence, leading to a significant judicial and constitutional crisis.

The decision to ban Abdullahi has since sparked intense debate and raised several legal questions.

 On June 28, High Court Justice Chacha Mwita ruled on the matter in a case filed by the Law Society of Kenya against the Supreme Court and others.

Denied audience

Mwita’s ruling highlighted the fallout from the Supreme Court’s decision: Abdullahi’s firm was denied audience, and his associates faced similar restrictions.

It noted that Supreme Court judges had to recuse themselves from cases involving Abdullahi’s firm.

Rosana’s petition criticises Koome for failing to anticipate the legal ramifications of the ban, including potential challenges under the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015.

 By not foreseeing these consequences, Rosana claims that Koome has inadvertently forced the High Court to review the Supreme Court’s actions.

 This intervention by a lower court, Rosana argues, undermines the hierarchical integrity of the judiciary and is an embarrassing situation for the highest court in the land. The petition also raises concerns about the principle of impartiality.

Potential appeal

It points out that, with the Supreme Court itself being a party to potential appeals from the High Court’s review, Koome’s actions may lead to the Court judging its own decisions. This could compromise the public perception of justice and the integrity of the judiciary.

Furthermore, Rosana criticizes Koome for failing to explore alternative measures that might have prevented the current crisis.
The decision to impose a ban on a senior counsel without considering other legal or procedural options is, according to Rosana, a dangerous precedent. He warns that such a move sets a troubling example, potentially leading to arbitrary denials of access to the courts.

Rosana’s petition concludes with a stark warning about the implications of the Chief Justice’s actions.

 He argues that if the Supreme Court can deny a senior counsel’s audience without adequate justification, it risks eroding fundamental principles of justice and fairness. Such actions, he asserts, could lead to broader implications for the right of counsel to represent clients, further undermining the judiciary’s credibility and fairness.