LSK suffers blow in bid to shield advocates from arrest, prosecution
Justice Lawrence Mugambi held that the petition was fatally defective, ruling that it lacked the necessary specificity and precision required of a constitutional petition.
The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has suffered a blow after the High Court dismissed its suit seeking sweeping protections for advocates from arrest, prosecution or harassment while representing clients.
In his ruling, Justice Lawrence Mugambi said the petition was fatally defective, noting that it lacked the specificity and precision required of a constitutional petition.
More To Read
- IEBC: Only MCAs can be recalled, non-performing MPs and senators protected by legal gap
- IEBC must rein in early campaigns to avoid heightened political tensions -LSK
- LSK rejects Passaris’ protest Bill, warns MPs against curtailing freedoms
- LSK faults IPOA over inaction, urges tougher oversight, compensation for police brutality victims
- Court upholds mandatory LSK membership for advocates
- New Bill could allow president to award 'Senior Counsel' title to politicians, civil servants
Justice Mugambi said LSK had not named any specific advocates whose rights had been violated or cited concrete incidents to back its claims, instead relying on broad and generic allegations.
While affirming that LSK had the legal standing to file the case, he stressed that the 'advocate-client privilege' is not absolute.
According to the judge, advocates, like all other citizens, are subject to criminal investigation and prosecution if there is evidence of wrongdoing.
"Under the Evidence Act, privilege does not apply when communications are made in furtherance of an illegal purpose or when an advocate becomes aware of a crime or fraud", ruled Justice Mugambi.
Justice Mugambi added that any interference with an advocate's professional role must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and not through blanket orders as LSK had sought.
In the case filed in 2019, LSK had accused the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Inspector-General of Police, and other state agencies of intimidating lawyers, forcing them to reveal confidential client information and detaining them beyond the 24-hour constitutional limit.
The society sought court orders to stop such actions, compel police to release advocates on free bond, and require that disciplinary mechanisms under the Advocates Act be exhausted before any criminal charges are preferred.
Top Stories Today
