What happens when the institution sworn to defend the rule of law uses court boycotts as a political or administrative weapon?
Across Kenya, courtroom doors remain open, yet justice sits standstill. In July 2026, the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) announced a nationwide protest followed by an indefinite targeted boycott against specific judges and judicial officers. The stated goal? Pushing for judicial accountability, curbing corruption, and addressing registry inefficiencies.
However, behind these noble-sounding intentions lies a constitutional dilemma. By compelling advocates to stay away from courtrooms, the boycott leaves ordinary citizens caught in the crossfire, their trials stalled, bail hearings delayed, and urgent rights protections left hanging in the balance.
Now, a high-stakes constitutional challenge brought by Dr. Adrian Kamotho brings this fundamental conflict into sharp focus: Can a professional body bypass constitutional mechanisms to boycott the bench?
The Spark: LSK’s Court Boycott Directives
On July 17, 2026, the LSK Council issued a statement to its members calling for a one-day nationwide court boycott on July 22, followed by an indefinite targeted boycott starting July 23.
The targeted boycott specifically singled out a list of judges and judicial officers who had issued orders restraining investigations or disciplinary proceedings by bodies like the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), or the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI).
Under these guidelines, LSK directed advocates to:
- Refrain from conducting proceedings before any judge on the targeted list.
- Demand adjournments, recusals, or case transfers solely because the presiding judicial officer was listed.
- Report non-compliant lawyers or judges to the LSK Council for “appropriate action” or disciplinary measures.
In an extraordinary oversight that highlighted the haste of these measures, the LSK’s blacklisted roster even included the late Hon. Justice Mohammed Ibrahim, a judge who had passed away months prior.
The Human Cost: Punishing Litigants to Target the Bench
The core argument against LSK’s directives is simple: Courts do not exist for advocates or judges, they exist for litigants seeking justice.
When a lawyer is forced to walk out of a courtroom, the immediate victim is not the presiding judge, who retains their office and salary. The victim is the remandee waiting for a bail ruling, the parent fighting for child protection, or the small business owner seeking an urgent injunction.
By creating an extra-constitutional mechanism to “punish” judicial officers, LSK’s actions effectively impose collective liability on innocent citizens who have no say in how judicial appointments, investigations, or case assignments are handled.
To see the urgent conservatory relief sought to halt these disruptions immediately, you can review the Notice of Motion-Adrian v. LSK here.
The Legal Breakdown: Why the Boycott Hits a Constitutional Wall
In the petition filed at the High Court, Dr. Adrian Kamotho challenges the boycott on several critical constitutional and statutory grounds:
1. Extralegal Pressure on Judicial Independence
Articles 159 and 160 of the Constitution guarantee that the Judiciary is subject only to the law and free from external direction. Conditioning the end of a boycott on judges vacating or setting aside specific court orders exerts unconstitutional pressure on judicial decision-making.
2. Overstepping Statutory Mandates
Neither the Law Society of Kenya Act nor the Advocates Act grants the LSK Council power to close courtrooms, restrict judicial sittings, or compel lawyers to abandon their clients. Major decisions of this nature require approval by an LSK General Meeting and formal rule-making procedures involving the Chief Justice, neither of which occurred.
3. Misapplying the Right to Protest
While Article 37 protects peaceful assembly and protest, and Article 41 protects labor strikes, these rights do not apply seamlessly here. Advocates are independent professionals, not employees of the Judiciary involved in a labor dispute. A protest cannot legally violate a litigant’s non-derogable right to a fair trial under Article 25(c) or access to justice under Article 48.
4. Bypassing Established Accountability Frameworks
The Constitution already provides clear procedures for dealing with judicial misconduct through the Judicial Service Commission (Articles 168 and 172). Attempting to bench judges through professional isolation creates a parallel, unconstitutional disciplinary regime.
For an in-depth reading of the complete background, statutory references, and all 19 declarations sought against the LSK, inspect the Adrian Kamotho v. LSK Petition here.
A Call for Restoring Order in the Justice System
Judicial accountability is vital for a thriving democracy, but achieving it cannot come at the expense of the rule of law itself.
Ultimately, this legal battle serves as a reminder: no matter how valid a grievance may be, the path to justice cannot be built on the closure of the courtrooms designed to protect it.
Leave a Reply