Supreme Court and Ahmednasir's legal battle rages: Who'll blink first?

Since the beginning of this year, the country has witnessed a high-stakes rift between Chief Justice Martha Koome, the Supreme Court judges, and prominent city lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi.

Their escalating clash, characterized by intense legal manoeuvring and public attacks, has captivated the nation throughout the year and raised crucial questions about the independence of the Judiciary. 

The conflict has unfolded in dramatic stages, spanning from early legal rulings to heated social media exchanges, and has culminated in a courtroom showdown with profound implications for the country’s legal landscape.

The highly charged conflict began on January 18, 2024, when the Supreme Court issued a permanent ban on Ahmednasir from appearing before it, citing his ongoing public criticism of the court and its judges.

The seven-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Koome, Deputy CJ Philomena Mwilu, and Justices Isaac Lenaola, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u, Mohamed Ibrahim, and William Ouko, issued a decree barring Senior Counsel Ahmednasir from appearing before the court, both personally and through his law firm.

While imposing the permanent ban, the apex court judges stated that the Senior Counsel’s relentless attacks on the court’s integrity and impartiality were unacceptable.

This dramatic move followed years of sustained attacks by Ahmednasir against the Judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, which he accused of corruption, incompetence, and bias.

The decision also extended to his law firm, banning not only Ahmednasir but also his employees from representing clients before the court.

Undermining court

The Chief Justice, alongside her colleagues, cited Ahmednasir’s persistent and scathing remarks against the Judiciary, accusing him of waging a smear campaign through social media and media outlets.

The ban was formalized in a letter signed by the Supreme Court Registrar, Letizia Wachira, which emphasized that Ahmednasir’s actions had undermined the court’s credibility.

“In view of the foregoing, this Court decides that henceforth, you shall have no audience before this court, either by yourself or through an employee of your law firm,” the court said in a letter addressed to Ahmednasir.

“Over the years, you have relentlessly run a smear campaign against judges. You have ridiculed this court with accusations of corruption, incompetence, and outright bribery,” the letter stated.

“It is untenable that you would seek justice in the very institution and before the very judges whose reputation and integrity you continuously assault.”

READ: Ahmednasir Abdullahi Supreme Court ban: What lawyers think

Ahmednasir, popularly known as Grand Mullah, is a prominent lawyer who has handled high-profile cases in the country, including the 2017 presidential petition when he represented then-president Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy at the time, William Ruto.

The animosity between Ahmednasir and the Judiciary is not a recent phenomenon.

Over the years, the Senior Counsel has repeatedly accused the Supreme Court of corruption and partisanship. His remarks have ranged from claims of bribery to questioning the impartiality of the judges.

Illegitimate actions

In 2018, the Supreme Court issued a warning to Ahmednasir over attacks against the court, accusations of corruption, and claims of incompetence.

The warning came after Ahmednasir made inflammatory remarks about the handling of a case involving two Iranian terror suspects. He accused the court of political bias and illegitimate actions, calling the judges “headless chickens.”

Unfazed by the warning, the lawyer continued to use his social media platforms to make corruption allegations against unnamed judges.

In January of this year, President Ruto also took to X to praise Ahmednasir for warning him about alleged sabotage by corrupt judicial officers when he became president in 2022.

This culminated in the Judiciary also coming under fire from the president, who claimed that rulings by corrupt judges were derailing key government projects.

“Ahmednasir SC, you warned me of sabotage by corrupt judicial officers. I told you there are many good officers in the Judiciary and that we will root out the corrupt. We shall,” Ruto said on X. Ahmednasir has admitted advising the president to prioritize judicial reforms during his tenure.

Unsurprisingly, the ban sparked a firestorm of reactions. In a defiant statement on his official X (formerly Twitter) platform, Ahmednasir dismissed the court’s action, calling the ban a “badge of honour.”

Ahmednasir described the Supreme Court’s decision to ban him as unscrupulous and stood by his corruption allegations against the apex court.

Badge of honour

He boldly declared that it was the second time in his 30-year career that the courts had refused him an audience simply for speaking his mind.

The first such incident, according to Ahmednasir, occurred in 2000, when he was ejected from court after presenting a paper advocating for the reconstitution of the High Court and Court of Appeal.

“I have no regrets. This is the second time the courts have silenced me for speaking out against corruption in the Judiciary,” he wrote.

“I wear this as a badge of honour, for it proves that I am on the right side of justice.”

He further announced his intention to challenge the decision at the East African Court of Justice in Arusha.

“I will seek legal redress against KOOME’s judicial skulduggery and niggling shenanigans. I will not waste time in going to KOOME’s CORRUPT COURT!” he said on X.

Immediately after the ban, the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) criticized the Supreme Court’s decision on Ahmednasir, calling it unconstitutional and demanding a retraction and apology.

“The Supreme Court has irredeemably lost on this one,” said former LSK president Eric Theuri. “We will not allow our statutory mandate to be encroached upon by the court.”

Donald Kipkorir, another prominent lawyer, praised the court’s decision and condemned Ahmednasir for “disrespecting” the judicial institution.

“How can you call judges incompetent, stupid, shallow, illiterate, and expect them to send you flowers and chocolate?” Kipkorir said.

Politically motivated

Ojwang Agina, a senior lawyer, described Ahmednasir as arrogant and said his remarks were politically motivated efforts aimed at attacking the independence of the Judiciary.

“That lawyer is serving his masters by attacking the judges. Sadly, he has not presented any evidence to support his claims. I support his ban,” Ojwang said.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision, LSK, Ahmednasir, and his law firm associates filed separate petitions in the High Court, challenging the legality of the ban.

ALSO READ: Supreme Court bans Ahmednasir Abdullahi for attacking judges, judiciary

They argued that the decision violated Ahmednasir’s constitutional right to a fair hearing, as neither he nor his law firm had been allowed to defend themselves before the ruling was issued.

The LSK also contended that the ban was unconstitutional, unreasonable, and violated basic principles of justice.

Justice Chacha Mwita, presiding over the case, ruled on June 4, 2024, that the High Court had the jurisdiction to hear the petition, despite objections from the Supreme Court judges.

The dispute took a new turn on November 12, 2024, when the Court of Appeal temporarily halted the proceedings in the High Court, suspending the cases challenging the ban.

The appellate court’s decision followed a request from the Supreme Court judges, who argued that the High Court had no authority to review its decision.

The appeal was based on claims that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters involving the Apex Court, which enjoys special protections under the Constitution.

Justices Pauline Nyamweya, George Odunga, and Aggrey Muchelule issued the orders, granting the Supreme Court judges a reprieve while the appeal was considered. 

As the year draws to a close, the legal war between Chief Justice Koome, the Supreme Court judges, and Ahmednasir is far from over. 

With the Court of Appeal’s suspension of the High Court cases and the ongoing public back-and-forth, the issue is expected to stretch into 2025, keeping the entire judiciary and legal fraternity on edge.

For now, both sides remain firmly entrenched in their positions. As the legal war continues, the public waits for a resolution that could shape the future of Kenya’s judiciary and its relationship with the legal profession.