BY SAM ALFAN.
Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi and his associates have sued the Supreme Court judges for permanently barring them from appearing before the apex court.
The outspoken lawyer wants the ban quashed, arguing that the judges of the apex court did not act judiciously when they made the decision.
Other lawyers in the firm- Asli Mohamud, Peter Muchoki, Irene Koech, Esther Wanga, Cohen Ananya, Khadijah Said Ali, Elizabeth Wangui, Benard Onyikwa, Tonny Towett and Mohamed Abdi have also challenged the ban.
The law firm has sued Chief Justice Martha Koome, Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, Justice Smokin Wanjala, Justice Isaac Lenaola, Justice Mohammed Ibrahim, Njoki Ndungu, William Ouko as well as the Deputy Registrar of the court, Letizia Wachira.
In the suit filed under certificate of urgency, the law firm wants the High Court to quash the decision contained in the letter dated 18th January 2024 and an order issued on 23rd January 2024.
It is their argument that every person is equal before the law and the judges and registrar are not above the law. Further, the Bill of Rights applies to all and binds all State organs and all persons including the judges.
“A declaration that judicial service and authority cannot be rendered or exercised so as to permit the interference with the Petitioners’ rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights,” seeks the law firm.
They want the High Court to declare that all actions of the Supreme Court Judges must be carried out in a m manner which is compatible with the Bill of Rights and that the action taken by the apex court was an unlawful administrative action.
They argued that none of the lawyers were afforded an opportunity to be heard and make representations before the judges took the administrative action to banish them from practicing before the Supreme Court, for an unspecified period of time.
“A declaration that the administrative action taken by the judges as contained in the letter dated 18th January 2024 to banish the Petitioners from practicing before the Supreme Court for an unspecified period of time violated the Petitioners” fundamental rights to human dignity under Article 28 of the Constitution, freedom of association under Article 36 of the Constitution, fair administrative action under Article 47(1) of the Constitution, access to justice under Article 48 of the Constitution and fair hearing under Article 50 (1) of the Constitution,” the petition stated.
The lawyer said the law firm is a body corporate with perpetual succession with a separate legal personality distinct from its partners including Ahmednasir Abdullahi SC.
Further, the firm is licenced to offer legal services in Kenya and has amongst its membership partners and employees who are advocates qualified to appear before the Supreme Court.
The law firm argues that all of these utterances reflect the personal opinions of lawyer Ahmednasir and are in accord with the freedom of expression rights protected under our Constitution.
It is their argument they are not liable for the utterances of the veteran lawyer more so expressed in his private capacity.
They claimed that some of the social media postings, media interviews and write-ups complied by the seven judges, and which allegedly damaged the reputation of the Supreme Court, were published as long ago as 2016.
“None of the publications and utterances of Ahmednasir cited by the seven judges can be deemed to constitute of contempt of court by the petitioners to warrant the action taken by the judges to banish them from practicing before the Supreme Court,” argues the Muhrab building based law firm.
Further, the publications in question do not constitute any serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice by the seven judges and Supreme Court judges are seasoned judicial officers who should be able to withstand robust criticism.
