Lawyers from the firm of senior counsel Ahmednassir Abdullahi now want the removal of seven Supreme Court judges, including Chief Justice Martha Koome.
In the petition filed with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), the petitioners accuse the entire seven-judge bench of the Apex court of gross misconduct, incompetence and violating judicial principles.
They want the JSC to submit the petition to President William Ruto, recommending the suspension of the entire bench.
The petitioners further urge that JSC recommend to the president the formation of a tribunal tasked with conducting an expedited enquiry into the allegations, compiling evidence and making binding recommendations to the president.
“The Judicial Service Commission considers this Petition and satisfies itself that the Petition discloses sufficient grounds for the removal from office each of the Seven Justices of the Supreme Court-Justice Martha Koome Chief Justice and President of the Supreme Court, Justice Philomena Mwilu Deputy Chief Justice and Vice President of the Supreme Court, Justice Mohamed Khadhar Ibrahim, Justice Dr Smokin Wanjala, Justice Njoki Susanna Ndung’u, Justice Isaac Lenaola and Justice William Ouko, under Article 168 (1) of the Constituion of Kenya, 2010,” read the court documents.
According to the 13 lawyers the decision to ban Ahmednassir from appearing before it, unfairly impacted his entire law firm.
Ahmednasir was on January 18, permanently barred from appearing before the Supreme Court for his continued attacks on judges and the Judiciary
The full seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court said in a statement that it was untenable for the lawyer to seek justice in the very institution and before the very judges whose reputation and integrity he never tires of attacking.
The decision which extends to all current and future advocates of the firm, alleges the petitioners, was made without ” any effort to bring the content of the letter to any of the petitioners despite the fact that the decision in the letter adversely affects their rights”.
They claim they are unjustly caught in a personal dispute targeting Ahmednassir.
“It is abundantly clear that the petitioners are unjustly affected as collateral damage in the ongoing personal attack against Ahmednassir Abdullahi SC,” argue the Petitioners.
They allege that the supreme court made this administrative ban as a judicial decision making it immune to appeal
The Petitioners argue that they cannot be held vicariously liable for Ahmednassir Abdullah’s actions or omissions.
They claim that the doctrine of vicarious liability does not apply in this case, as their professional association with him does not justify holding them accountable for his individual acts.
“The petitioners as his Partners and Associates at the firm cannot be held to be vicariously liable for his (Ahmednassir) actions and/or omissions. The doctrine of vicarious liability is not applicable in this instance.
The Petitioners further contend that there is no legal basis to extend liability to them simply due to their professional association with Mr. Ahmednasir Abdullahi SC,” read the court documents.
The lawyers further allege that the judges acted in bad faith and outside the lawful performance of their judicial function prescribed under the constitution and the supreme court act
“Impunity and callous disregard of the law by those who wield power whether in the executive, legislature or judiciary has a long corrosive effect on the rule of law and institutional growth and solidity in Kenya’s history.”
“The 2010 constitution to a great extent was informed by the cavalier attitude of the powerful to the rule of law and institutions.
It sought to bring about a paradigm shift and an era where adherence to the rule of law was the norm.
It also seeks to enforce constitutionalism on public servants like judges of the Supreme Court,” they added.
