The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has intensified its standoff with the Judiciary after announcing an indefinite boycott of 12 judges and one magistrate who obtained court orders suspending disciplinary proceedings or investigations, setting the stage for one of the most significant confrontations between the legal profession and the Bench in recent years.
The targeted boycott, which begins on Thursday after a planned one-day nationwide court boycott, will remain in force until court orders restraining the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) or the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) are lifted.
“The targeted boycott will commence on Thursday, July 23, 2026, being the day after the general boycott, and will continue indefinitely until the respective court orders restraining the actions of the Judicial Service Commission, Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission and/or the Directorate of Criminal Investigations are set aside,” the notice states.
LSK President Charles Kanjama said advocates should neither appear before the affected judicial officers nor participate in fresh proceedings before them. Instead, lawyers have been directed to seek transfers of cases, apply for recusals where appropriate or request adjournments. The society also wants the affected judges to restrict themselves to delivering pending rulings and judgments without hearing new matters.
The judges and magistrate named by the LSK are Chief Justice Martha Koome, Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, Supreme Court judges Smokin Wanjala, Isaac Lenaola and Njoki Ndung’u, Court of Appeal judges Sankale ole Kantai and Lucy Waithaka, High Court judges Anthony Ombwayo, Lucas Naikuni, Dora Chepkwony and Josephine Mong’are, together with Chief Magistrate Stella Atambo.
According to the LSK, the judicial officers obtained court orders that halted disciplinary proceedings before the JSC or investigations by the EACC or DCI. The society argues that the orders have hindered constitutional oversight bodies from executing their mandates, while the affected judicial officers maintain that they are exercising their constitutional right to due process and a fair hearing.
- LSK launches boycott of judges over blocked misconduct probes
- Judges’ association appeals to LSK to rethink boycott
Chief Justice Koome, Deputy Chief Justice Mwilu and Supreme Court judges Wanjala, Lenaola and Ndung’u moved to the High Court in 2025 after the JSC sought responses to petitions seeking their removal over alleged judicial misconduct following the Supreme Court’s decision barring Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi from appearing before the apex court. The conservatory orders obtained have since suspended the JSC proceedings pending the determination of constitutional issues before the High Court.
Justice Lucy Waithaka was also included after obtaining orders stopping JSC proceedings arising from a petition accusing her of issuing conflicting judgments in the same land dispute. The JSC had found that the complaint disclosed a prima facie case warranting further inquiry.
Justice Josephine Mong’are secured court orders in March 2026 restraining the EACC from summoning or investigating her over alleged corruption claims linked to a commercial dispute involving former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju and a Sh1.9 billion bank loan.
Chief Magistrate Stella Atambo also obtained High Court orders barring the EACC, DCI and the Director of Public Prosecutions from investigating or prosecuting her after detectives recovered more than Sh2 million during a search of her residence. She has denied any wrongdoing, insisting the money belonged to her husband and challenging the legality of the search and investigations.
Court of Appeal Judge Sankale ole Kantai was listed after obtaining court orders halting DCI investigations and JSC proceedings arising from petitions linked to investigations into the murder of Dutch businessman Tob Cohen. Justice Kantai has denied the allegations and challenged the proceedings, arguing that his constitutional rights were violated.
The boycott has generated differing views within the legal fraternity. Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi questioned why the LSK had not also targeted judges who issued the orders restraining the JSC from carrying out its constitutional mandate.
“Mr President Kanjama.. why are we also not boycotting the judges who issued ex parte injunctions stopping JSC from undertaking its constitutional mandate? We need to expand the net and stop this nonsense for good,” he posted on X.
In another post, Ahmednasir described the boycott as a major step in the push for judicial accountability.
“They thought the day will never come. They thought they will just continue receiving bribes and sell justice to the highest bidder,” he posted.
However, lawyer Peter Wanyama, who represents Justice Kantai, faulted the inclusion of his client on the boycott list, arguing that the matter had been wrongly presented.
“In this case, Mr Charles Kanjama has included this case in his list yet JSC is not a party to the case,” Wanyama said, adding that while he supported judicial accountability, it should not be pursued through “falsehoods, lies and vindictive behaviour.”
The Judiciary has maintained that all courts across the country will remain open despite the planned boycott. Judiciary spokesperson Paul Ndemo said the industrial action was “not an appropriate or proportionate response” and warned that it would mainly prejudice litigants whose matters are scheduled for hearing. He urged advocates to pursue complaints through the JSC and the Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman rather than withdrawing from court proceedings.
The Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association (KMJA) has also appealed to the LSK to reconsider the boycott, warning that its greatest impact would be felt by ordinary Kenyans seeking justice.
“It is precisely because we take these concerns seriously that we respectfully urge the LSK to reconsider a boycott, whether general or targeted. A withdrawal from court proceedings does not fall on the institution alone; its immediate and heaviest cost is borne by litigants,” KMJA President Justice Peter Mulwa said.
While acknowledging concerns over delays, registry inefficiencies and judicial accountability, the association maintained that the Judiciary was already implementing reforms and reiterated its support for investigating credible allegations of misconduct through constitutionally established mechanisms.
“The KMJA maintains a zero-tolerance position on judicial misconduct and corruption in any form, and supports full, prompt and impartial investigation of any credible allegation,” Justice Mulwa said.
The association further proposed urgent dialogue through the National Council on the Administration of Justice, Court Users Committees or a dedicated Bench-Bar forum, arguing that lasting solutions would be achieved through collaboration rather than disruption of court proceedings.
The dispute now moves to the courts, where a three-judge High Court bench is expected next month to determine whether the JSC can proceed with petitions seeking the removal of several senior judges or whether the conservatory orders stopping the proceedings should remain in force, a decision that could significantly shape the balance between judicial accountability and judicial independence.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@nairobilawmonthly.com, and to advertise with us, call +254715061658 anytime of the day
