By Andrew Kariuki
The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has raised alarm over what it describes as a growing trend of judicial impunity, accusing sections of the Judiciary of issuing orders that undermine constitutional safeguards, disrupt legal practice and threaten access to justice.
In a strongly worded press statement dated January 13, 2026, the Society said recent court decisions; particularly in respect to conservatory orders issued in Nakuru, form part of a sustained and troubling pattern aimed at excluding private legal practitioners from representing public entities.
LSK argued that the orders effectively suspend lawful engagement of external counsel by State and county governments, cutting off advocates from a critical source of professional work without due process or hearing.
The Society warned that such actions amount to judicial overreach and pose a direct threat to the livelihoods of advocates and the constitutional right to legal representation.
The statement traces the dispute back to July 2020, when a Cabinet resolution required State departments to seek approval from the Attorney General before engaging external legal counsel.
LSK successfully challenged the directive, with the High Court quashing it in a July 2023 judgment.
The court held that public procurement of legal services must remain fair, transparent, competitive and cost-effective, as required under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Despite that ruling, LSK says similar efforts resurfaced in 2024 and 2025 through petitions seeking to bar counties from hiring private advocates.
A Senate joint committee later warned that such restrictions would violate the Constitution, procurement laws and statutes governing the Office of the Attorney General and County Attorneys, all of which expressly allow engagement of external counsel.
The Society dismissed claims that legal fees are unregulated or excessive, noting that advocates’ fees are governed by statute, subject to negotiation and ultimately taxed by courts where disputes arise.
LSK said suspending legal services altogether under the guise of cost control is legally untenable.
LSK further faulted the use of the conservatory orders, arguing that they ignore public interest, violate constitutional principles and unfairly prejudice parties not heard.
The Society cited Supreme Court guidance cautioning courts against blanket orders that have far-reaching effects without measurable justification.
The statement also referenced recent High Court decisions, including one suspending the Judicial Service Commission’s functions, as further evidence of what it termed an alarming drift toward unchecked judicial power.
While affirming respect for judicial independence, LSK warned that independence does not translate into immunity from accountability.
It cautioned that continued abuse of judicial authority risks eroding public confidence in the courts and provoking widespread outrage.
LSK disclosed that it has instructed counsel to seek review and setting aside of the impugned Nakuru orders and is actively compiling cases of alleged judicial misconduct for possible action.
“We shall not sit back and watch the Judiciary, the last line of defence for the people, run rogue against its own constitutional mandate,” the Society said, adding that it is prepared to take firm action to protect the rule of law, legal practice and access to justice.
The statement was signed by Faith Odhiambo, the President of the Law Society of Kenya.
