Lawyer and political analyst Willis Otieno has come out in support of the petition seeking to remove Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen and Deputy President Kithure Kindiki from the list of advocates of the High Court.

Speaking on a popular YouTube podcast on July 1, 2025, Otieno stated that the two should be stripped of their status as advocates because they have gone against the oath they took upon admission to the bar.

That oath required them to uphold the rule of law and promote the administration of justice, but their conduct, according to Otieno, no longer reflects those principles. He argued that their actions make them unfit to remain in the same bar as other advocates.

“The oath that we took requires that advocates uphold the rule of law and defend the constitution; their conduct by its nature is not advancing towards the promotion of the rule of law or defending justice, so why should they continue to be in the same bar as the rest of us? They have disregarded the oath; the consequence of it is that they should be removed,” Otieno said.

He went on to say that they have violated their oath, and the consequence of such a violation is removal from the roll of advocates, as they are no longer upholding the rule of law they swore to defend—an oath that envisioned serving the people of Kenya and protecting justice.

“They are no longer upholding the oath of office that we took as advocates to serve the people of Kenya and to defend the rule of law; they are not doing that, so they should be disbarred,” he added.

He further added that the evidence is sufficient and the records are available.

Petition

A petition was filed by Nairobi-based advocate Kepha Ojijo with the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) on June 30, 2025, seeking the removal of Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen and Deputy President Kithure Kindiki from the Roll of Advocates.

The motion accuses both of gross professional misconduct and violating the Advocates’ Code of Conduct during their tenure overseeing the country’s security docket, particularly during the Gen Z protests in 2024 and 2025.

Ojijo argues that the two presided over state-sanctioned brutality, including deaths, injuries, abductions, and enforced disappearances, without showing remorse or taking accountability—acts he argues demean the legal profession.

 The petition specifically criticises Murkomen’s “shoot-to-kill” directive issued on June 26, 2025, calling it reckless and an embarrassment to the profession.

Ojijo is requesting the LSK to convene a special general meeting to vote on their removal or refer the matter to the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal (ADT).

Under the Advocates Act (Cap 16), an advocate can be removed from the Roll for professional misconduct or conduct that brings disrepute to the profession. Reinstatement is only possible after five years and upon demonstration of rehabilitation.

Former LSK President Nelson Havi has supported the petition, arguing that Murkomen’s actions, including the issuance of unlawful police orders, warrant disciplinary action.

The petition reflects growing public and professional outrage over the government’s handling of the protests, with critics stating that the conduct of Murkomen and Kindiki undermines the integrity of the legal profession.