The Supreme Court has lifted its unprecedented two-year ban on outspoken lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi, marking a dramatic end to one of the most bitter feuds between the judiciary and the legal fraternity in Kenya’s history.
In a ruling delivered on Friday, January 23, 2026, a six-judge bench led by Chief Justice Martha Koome declared that the sanction imposed exactly two years earlier had “served its purpose” after the firebrand lawyer pledged to stop his relentless attacks on judges.
The decision came after senior counsels Paul Muite and Fred Ngatia conveyed Ahmednasir’s remorse and commitment to reform, a significant shift for the lawyer who had previously vowed never to appear before the court “as long as CJ Koome, DCJ Mwilu, Smokin Wanja and Njoki are judges.”
The ban, imposed on January 23, 2024, had sent shockwaves through the legal community. In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court barred Ahmednasir, his law firm employees, and anyone acting on his instructions from appearing before it, citing his “relentless and unabashed” criticism of the judiciary through social media.
“Ahmednasir Abdullahi, his Senior Counsel, shall have no audience before this Supreme Court, either by himself, through an employee of his law firm, or any other person holding his brief,” the original ban stated.
The court had questioned how the lawyer could seek justice from an institution “whose reputation and integrity you never tire in assaulting.”
The controversy escalated when Ahmednasir took to X, formerly Twitter, to outline his defiant conditions for returning to practice before the apex court. His scathing critiques of judges and allegations of corruption and incompetence sparked a bitter feud that spilled over to the Judicial Service Commission and even reached the East African Court of Justice.
Several petitions were subsequently filed seeking the removal of Supreme Court judges, including Chief Justice Koome, with accusations of suppressing free speech and abusing judicial authority flying thick and fast.
The turning point came during the court’s first sitting of the year, following a minute of silence for the late Justice Mohammed Ibrahim. What began as proceedings in a decades-old land dispute between the government and rancher Nguruman Limited quickly shifted focus when Muite and Ngatia made an oral plea for reconsideration.
Ironically, Ahmednasir had previously represented Nguruman Limited at the Court of Appeal, where the company secured a staggering Sh17 billion compensation award over repeated land invasions.
“The denial of audience has achieved its objective, and we pray that the order be vacated,” Muite told the court, revealing that discussions had been held with Ahmednasir about his conduct.
Ngatia emphasized that two years had provided sufficient time for reflection. “Time enables introspection,” he stated, urging the court not to be “held hostage by past events.”
The lawyers assured the judges that Ahmednasir’s future commentaries would be scholarly and respectful, a promise that drew cautious questioning from the bench.
Justice Isaac Lenaola pressed for concrete assurances. “You are diplomatic but have not made a firm commitment,” he told Ngatia.
Justice Njoki Ndung’u similarly sought clarity on whether Ahmednasir would uphold decorum in future statements.
In response, Muite affirmed that firm commitments had been secured. “The Bar and bench collaborate in serving justice. Any commentary must recognise the decorum and dignity of judicial office,” he said.
Ngatia went further, describing respect for the judiciary as an “irreducible minimum” and assuring the court that “this incident will not happen again.”
Lawyer Dennis Ben Mosota, representing Nguruman Limited, described the ban as a “collective measure to uphold the court’s dignity” and confirmed Ahmednasir’s “genuine remorse.”
Previous attempts to overturn the ban had failed on procedural grounds, while negotiations between the court and the Law Society of Kenya made little progress, making Friday’s ruling all the more significant.
The lifting of the ban effectively ends a standoff that had divided opinion in legal circles, with some viewing it as necessary to maintain judicial dignity while others saw it as an affront to free speech and the right to criticize public institutions.
For Ahmednasir, known as the “Grand Mullah” in legal circles, the ruling represents both a victory and a retreat. The lawyer built his reputation on fearless criticism of what he perceived as corruption and incompetence in the judiciary, but his return to the Supreme Court comes with strings attached.
The question now is whether the controversial lawyer can maintain the scholarly and respectful discourse he has promised, or whether his trademark combative style will resurface. The legal fraternity will be watching closely as this new chapter unfolds in the relationship between one of Kenya’s most outspoken lawyers and the country’s highest court.
