Court wrong on Ahmednasir Abdullahi ban

The Supreme Court has permanently barred Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi from appearing before it. The stated reason for this drastic move is that the lawyer has persisted in his ‘unsubstantiated’ attacks against the apex judicial body.

Therein lies the first problem with the court’s directive. Mr Abdullahi criticism of the Court is chiefly that it is a corrupt institution whose members take bribes. Bribery is by nature a secretive exercise, with a willing giver, willing taker and usually no complainant. It is therefore unreasonable to expect one to ‘substantiate’ bribery allegations. Such can only be inferred from the judges’ decisions.

Secondly, the Court’s power must be exercised sparingly and with restraint, without venturing into the legislative sphere. The rationale is that judges are unelected and therefore not directly accountable to the people. Thus, while the Executive and Legislative arms are overhauled every five years, the judiciary continues largely uninterrupted. Our laws provide that every Advocate is entitled to practise before the Supreme Court. The court cannot, therefore, deny a duly admitted advocate audience, any more than it can admit a non-advocate to practise. This was a classic case of “legislating from the bench”. If the Supreme Court’s move was meant to protect its dignity and stature, it has had the opposite effect of portraying it as an insecure institution.

Public bodies must inspire confidence and command respect based on their merits. As for the reputations of individual judges, defamation laws can be used to remedy any damage caused. In sum, the Supreme Court acted unreasonably, illegally, and unnecessarily.

Mr Arori is an advocate of the High Court of Kenya;         [email protected]