Why LSK stands at a critical juncture

By Charles Kanjama
[e-mail]

Felix Mwaura Gatundu is what one friend would call ‘an advocate non-advocate’. A paradox. An oxymoron. This week Felix highlighted what is wrong with the ongoing Law Society of Kenya (LSK) election campaigns. He sent out a bulk email to lawyers attacking this column as taking “partisan political and extreme positions” and selectively excerpted seven previous articles in support.

As a number of colleagues took concern with the nature of the email and informed me, I noted that the mail had slyly omitted its stated recipient, namely myself, but had instead been forwarded to numerous lawyers. Another colleague notified me that no advocate named Felix Gatundu exists according to the LSK database, which fact was later confirmed by the LSK secretariat.

My attempt to respond through LSK’s mailing list was rejected, thus denying my right to access members and effectively respond to the attack. Yet what amazed me was that one of my competitors wrote me to justify this manner of conducting LSK campaigns through pseudonymous attacks, purportedly because the excerpts were accurate. My response was simple: the excerpts were selective and tendentious, with false introductory commentary. Further, sending attack emails of this nature was contrary to various statutes and ethical standards. Finally, there is such a thing as defamation by selective or out-of-context quotations. Some colleagues may think me naive for expecting a higher standard of LSK elections, or even for trying to correct media misreports and wrong quotes attributed to me that portrayed my campaign as negative rather than positive. Others may even disagree with PLO Lumumba’s concern, which I share, at the lavish spending and sumptuous meals, with rumours of cash handouts, which have attended these polls. But there it is. There will definitely be need for a post-mortem of the February 6 LSK polls to ensure that LSK’s political standards do not degenerate to the level often observed in political party contests.

Still, it has been a bracing contest, which has allowed LSK members to engage with the agenda, character and track record of the various candidates. And that is a good thing, because an organisation like LSK is too important for leadership decisions to be made without giving members a chance to vote on them. Members will take a dim view of any candidate who manifests desperation to become or remain LSK chairman, and will ensure they vote in the best candidate, whoever that may be between my two competitors and me.

The Law Society and the legal profession stands at a critical juncture, when today’s electoral choices can affect its ability to develop in innovative ways, and transform into an organisation that really facilitates its members’ professional practice. One hopes that advocates will recognise the danger of voting any candidate who feels he has earned the members’ vote through financial investment in campaigns, because such person if elected is likely to view it as a moment of reward to enjoy the prestige and benefits of the position, rather than to roll his sleeves and begin real service to members. My hope is that the incoming LSK chair will uphold three key values that have been core to my campaign, namely integrity, members’ welfare and commitment to practice matters. The legal profession must grow and adapt to meet increasingly-demanding societal, business and consumer needs. It must help each of its members find their place within the profession and thrive in their chosen practice areas. Yet without a visionary and committed leader, it may instead shrink upon itself and move into an era of decline, growing competition for fewer jobs, and falling standards.

Felix’s attack triggered a personal reflection on the nature and extent of political balance and neutrality required in a professional body like LSK. From a personal perspective, I am delighted to have done 171 serious articles on social commentary, including political analysis, over a period of three and a half years. It has been a fantastic opportunity to contribute to national debate on serious issues. Such access to the public ear is a serious trust.