Fate of Senior Counsel Ahmednasir's ban hangs in the balance as Supreme Court, LSK talks stall

Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi. (Photo: JKLive)

By Lucy Mumbi
Wednesday, July 23, 2025

LSK appointed advocate Wilfred Nderitu told Justice Chacha Mwita that mediation efforts had failed to gain traction and prospects of a resolution remained bleak.

The fate of Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi hangs in the balance after it emerged that talks between the Supreme Court and the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) aimed at resolving the impasse over his ban from appearing before the apex court have stalled.

Ahmednasir, alongside all advocates affiliated with his law firm, Ahmednasir Abdullahi Advocates LLP, was barred from the court over alleged consistent online attacks against the judges.

More To Read

In a court session on Wednesday in Nairobi, LSK appointed advocate Wilfred Nderitu told Justice Chacha Mwita that mediation efforts had failed to gain traction and prospects of a resolution remained bleak.

“We were advised by the Court of Appeal to settle the matter amongst ourselves. We held one meeting, which did not yield anything. We are supposed to return to the Court of Appeal this month. We do not see prospects of agreeing,” Nderitu said.

“We have not reported back to the Court of Appeal. We were to agree and get a date in July, but none of that has happened.”

The ban, which was communicated in January 2024 through a notice by Supreme Court Registrar Letizia Muthoni Wachira, cited “consistently distasteful” social media remarks by Ahmednasir, which were deemed to ridicule the court.

Nderitu disclosed that the discussions began in April 2025 following advice from the Court of Appeal, where the parties are also entangled in a separate dispute on whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition challenging the ban.

The escalation to the Court of Appeal followed Justice Mwita’s dismissal of an application by the Supreme Court judges, among them Chief Justice Martha Koome and the Registrar, who had sought to block the High Court from hearing the matter.

The judges argued that they are protected by judicial immunity and that no proceedings could be instituted against them. They also claimed the petition was fundamentally flawed for seeking orders against a superior court, contrary to Article 163(7) of the Constitution, which binds all other courts to decisions of the Supreme Court.

Further, they contended that Ahmednasir and his colleagues had not exhausted legal channels under the Supreme Court Act, such as filing a formal review request before moving to court.

Despite the objections, Justice Mwita held that the petition raised legitimate constitutional questions.

“My review of the petition is that the issues raised therein are not idle. They fall within the ambit of article 23(1) as read with article 165(3)(b)(d)(i) of the Constitution and, therefore, under the jurisdiction of this Court. The court has to determine whether indeed, rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights have been denied, violated, infringed or are threatened through the impugned action,” he ruled.

On the attempt to strike out the names of the judges and the Registrar from the proceedings, Justice Mwita declined, stating: “As no positive orders have been sought against the 3rd to 10th interested parties that would call for striking their names from the petition, there is need to hear the petition and determine it on merit.”

The matter is scheduled for mention on November 28, 2025.