Tag: Supreme Court

  • Tuju’s Explosive Letter Accuses Supreme Court Judges of Misconduct, Demands Probe Into Top Lawyers

    Tuju’s Explosive Letter Accuses Supreme Court Judges of Misconduct, Demands Probe Into Top Lawyers

    In a scathing open letter addressed to Chief Justice Martha Koome, former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju has leveled grave allegations of judicial misconduct against five Supreme Court of Kenya (SCoK) judges and called for investigations into Senior Counsels Fred Ojiambo and Githu Muigai.

    The letter, dated March 21, 2025, accuses the judiciary of undermining Kenya’s stability through reckless rulings, ethical violations, and collusion with powerful interests.

    Key Allegations Against the Judiciary

    Tuju draws parallels between Kenya’s judiciary and the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous 1857 *Dred Scott* decision, which entrenched slavery and fueled civil war.

    He warns that the SCoK’s “inflammatory language” in dismissing the 2022 presidential election petition—including phrases like “hot air” and “wild goose chase”—exacerbated ethnic divisions in a “highly combustible” political climate.

    Central to his claims is a protracted legal battle over a 27-acre Karen property, which Tuju alleges is being targeted by “crooked auctioneers” and judges acting in favor of the East African Development Bank (EADB).

    Judges of the Supreme Court of Kenya. Photo/Courtesy.

    He accuses five SCoK judges of issuing a “morally indefensible” ruling permitting the bank to auction his land, arguing that compensation could be paid later if he prevailed.

    “This sets a dangerous precedent,” Tuju writes, likening it to “executing someone now and resurrecting them later if proven innocent.”

    The judges, he claims, further violated due process by blocking his constitutional right to submit a rejoinder and recusing themselves “without precedent” after affidavits central to EADB’s case were recanted.

    Tuju also alleges that four of the seven SCoK judges have been seen in viral videos “exhibiting drunkenness in public,” undermining their credibility as role models.

    Calls to Investigate Senior Counsels

    Tuju urges the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to probe SC Fred Ojiambo and SC Githu Muigai for “gross professional misconduct.”

    He accuses Ojiambo of fabricating affidavits—now withdrawn and subject to criminal proceedings—while Muigai allegedly engineered a conflict of interest by championing the EADB Act as Attorney General, despite his law firm representing the bank.

    The Act was recently declared unconstitutional by the Machakos High Court on March 20, 2025.

    The letter frames Kenya as a “fragile state” at risk of collapse, citing insecurity in regions like Baringo and Mandera, rampant poverty, and a youth population bulge.

    Tuju warns that an “irresponsible judiciary” could ignite chaos, noting that Kenya ranks 35th on global fragility indices. “The SCoK must not add fuel to the fire,” he writes, emphasizing that judges’ life tenure demands stricter accountability through the JSC.

    Tuju claims to have written three times to Chief Justice Koome, receiving replies that failed to address his allegations.

    Enclosed documents purportedly include evidence of judicial overreach and JSC interference. While the SCoK and accused lawyers have yet to publicly respond, the letter underscores mounting scrutiny of Kenya’s judiciary amid high-stakes political and legal battles.

    Tuju’s letter has coincided with broader unrest with the SCoK.

    Lawyers Nelson Havi and Ahmednasir Abdullahi have filed separate petitions with the JSC to oust all seven justices—Chief Justice Koome, Philomena Mwilu, Mohamed Ibrahim, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u, Isaac Lenaola, and William Ouko—over allegations of incompetence, misconduct, and corruption.

    Havi, a former Law Society of Kenya (LSK) president, has claimed the judges accepted bribes, including an alleged offer involving Tuju’s Karen property, as posted on X on March 13, 2025.

    Abdullahi, barred from appearing before the SCoK since January 2024 due to his vocal criticism, has rallied 13 lawyers from his firm to demand the bench’s removal.

    The judiciary’s woes have deepened public mistrust. Havi’s petition, filed on January 13, 2025, accuses the SCoK of barring him and Abdullahi without due process, while Abdullahi’s campaign stems from the court’s indefinite ban on his firm, upheld as recently as January 21, 2025.

    Former Chief Justice David Maraga has dismissed these ouster bids as “dishonest” and politically motivated, but the High Court’s extension of orders on March 5, 2025, blocking JSC hearings has only heightened tensions.

    For now, Tuju’s lettee puts JSC under pressure to investigate the judges and Senior Counsels. Meanwhile, Tuju’s case—and his warning that he may not see justice until 2036—spotlights concerns over judicial impartiality and the rule of law in Kenya.

  • Shocking Revelation: Nelson Havi Claims CJ Koome and Top Judges Took Sh4B Bribe from Uhuru

    Shocking Revelation: Nelson Havi Claims CJ Koome and Top Judges Took Sh4B Bribe from Uhuru

    Former LSK President Alleges Widespread Corruption in Kenya’s Supreme Court

    Former Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Nelson Havi has intensified his campaign against the Supreme Court of Kenya, alleging that judges were bribed with over Sh4 billion by former President Uhuru Kenyatta.

    In a bold statement on Sunday, Havi claimed that Chief Justice Martha Koome and three other Supreme Court judges received Sh4 billion in bribes.

    “We need to go live on X to expose how the bribe was given to Koome and Njoki by a Jubilee operative, to Wanjala by a Nyanza MP, and to another judge by a governor. Let the four disgraced judges return the Sh4 billion they took from Uhuru Kenyatta. That was unjust enrichment,” Havi posted, tagging fellow lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi. Both lawyers have been vocal critics of the country’s top court.

    Havi’s allegations of judicial corruption did not stop there. He further claimed that Sh300 million was “disbursed” as a bribe in a case where Geo Chem Middle East Limited was awarded Sh2.3 billion on December 18, 2020, against the Kenya Bureau of Standards (Kebs) for breach of contract.

    According to Havi, the bribery tip came from a judge who was not part of the bench hearing the case.

    “A Supreme Court judge who did not sit on this bench has confirmed to us that Sh300 million was disbursed for the assignment on Kenya Bureau of Standards. That is why the judges who went to court do not want the other judge to spill the beans on them,” he posted.

    The award was reinstated by Justices Philomena Mwilu, Mohamed Ibrahim, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u, and Isaac Lenaola on December 18, 2020.

    Ahmednasir’s Claims of Bribery in the Supreme Court

    Ahmednasir Abdullahi has also made explosive claims of corruption in the Supreme Court. In a suit filed before the East African Court of Justice, where he is challenging a ban imposed on him by the Kenyan Supreme Court, Abdullahi has lifted the lid on alleged widespread corruption in the apex court.

    In his suit, Abdullahi argues that the Supreme Court unlawfully denied him an audience based on a “judge-made offense” intended to silence his public criticism of corruption in the judiciary. He also claims that the ban was imposed following an exchange of WhatsApp messages among members of the Supreme Court bench.

    Abdullahi is seeking Sh200 million in legal fees from taxpayers, which he claims he would have earned from cases he was hired to handle but were stalled due to the ban.

    How Supreme Court Judges Were Allegedly Bribed

    Supreme Court judges (from left) Isaac Lenaola, Dr Smokin Wanjala, Philomena Mwilu, Chief Justice Martha Koome, Mohamed Ibrahim, Njoki Ndung’u and William Ouko.

    The most striking part of Abdullahi’s petition is his detailed account of how judges were allegedly bribed to influence the outcome of the 2022 presidential petition.

    In the court documents seen by Kenya Insights, Abdullahi claims that four out of the seven Supreme Court judges were paid between $1.5 million and $2 million (Sh200 million to Sh266 million) each to overturn William Ruto’s election victory, which had been challenged by Raila Odinga. However, the judges were unable to influence the verdict, which upheld Ruto’s win on September 5, 2022.

    Abdullahi provides a blow-by-blow account of how the bribes were allegedly delivered:
    Judge A accepted a bribe delivered at their Nairobi home by a powerful politician.
    Judge B accepted bribes from three individuals: the son of a deceased leader, a retired governor, and an influential businesswoman.
    Judge C took a bribe from a member of the National Intelligence Service (NIS) who later left the service.
    Judge D accepted a bribe from a member of Parliament. Initially, Judge D wanted the bribe to be given to their wife but later changed their mind.

    Historical Corruption Allegations

    Lawyer Ahmednasir’s Abdulahi.

    Abdullahi also referenced past corruption scandals involving Supreme Court judges as part of his evidence. He cited the case of Justice Phillip Tunoi, who was accused of taking a $2 million bribe to influence an election petition. Tunoi was found guilty and dismissed by former President Uhuru Kenyatta.

    He also mentioned the Panama Papers, which alleged that Justice Kalpana Rawal, Kenya’s second Deputy Chief Justice, and her husband operated offshore companies in the Caribbean, a notorious tax haven. The offshore companies were reportedly used to sell properties in the UK worth millions of shillings.

    Abdullahi further highlighted an incident where the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) recommended an investigation into Justice Jackton Ojwang over allegations that he received favors from then-Migori Governor Okoth Obado in exchange for influencing a case. However, a tribunal led by Justice Visram cleared Ojwang of misconduct.

    Additionally, Abdullahi referenced a petition filed at the JSC by Jared Ongeri, seeking the removal of Justices Mohammed Ibrahim, Jackton Ojwang, Smokin Wanjala, and Njoki Ndung’u for allegedly taking bribes to influence the outcome of the Wajir Governor election petition.

    He also mentioned the case of Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, who was arrested and charged with corruption and economic crimes, including tax evasion and abuse of office. Although the charges were upheld in a constitutional reference, her prosecution was quashed after a court ruled that her privacy was violated during the evidence-gathering process.

    Supreme Court Judges Fight to Keep Their Jobs

    Amid the bribery accusations, Supreme Court judges are fighting to retain their positions as the JSC considers petitions for their removal. The JSC is set to reconvene on Tuesday, with the proposed removal of seven Supreme Court judges, including Chief Justice Martha Koome, topping the agenda.

    The meeting will be chaired by the Commission’s vice-chairperson, Isaac Rutto, and attended by nine members. However, CJ Koome and Justice Mohammed Ibrahim, who are among the defendants in the ouster petitions, will not attend.

    Last Friday, CJ Koome led the judges in suing the JSC, rejecting the disciplinary proceedings and warning of a looming constitutional crisis if the judges are suspended. She argued that only the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to determine the validity of presidential elections, state emergencies, and the removal of judges.

    “No other person or authority is authorized to carry out the constitutional functions specifically designated to the Supreme Court. Suspending the judges would deprive Kenyans of their fundamental rights,” Koome stated in court filings.

    The complaints against the judges were filed by former Cabinet Minister Raphael Tuju’s Dari Limited and lawyers Nelson Havi and Christopher Rosana, alleging misconduct, misbehavior, and incompetence.

    Lawyer Nelson Havi.

    While Tuju’s complaint involves a commercial dispute with the East African Development Bank, Havi and Rosana’s complaints stem from the Supreme Court’s decision to ban lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi over his social media posts criticizing the judiciary.

    The judges were expected to respond to the complaints by February 24, 2025, but instead sought conservatory orders to halt the proceedings. Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu also filed a preliminary objection, contesting the JSC’s authority to entertain the petitions.

    Interestingly, Havi previously represented Mwilu in a separate case where she faced allegations of misconduct related to dealings with a bank. She was later cleared by the court.

    As the battle between the judiciary and its critics intensifies, Kenya faces a potential constitutional crisis, with the integrity of its highest court hanging in the balance.

  • NIS Has Set Aside Billions To Remove CJ Koome And Disband The Supreme Court Ahead Of 2027, Gachagua Alleges

    NIS Has Set Aside Billions To Remove CJ Koome And Disband The Supreme Court Ahead Of 2027, Gachagua Alleges

    Speaking to congregants at Meru PCEA church on Sunday, former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has accused President William Ruto’s administration of plotting to remove Chief Justice Martha Koome from office and dismantle Kenya’s Supreme Court. Gachagua’s claims come amid a backdrop of political tension and judicial scrutiny.

    During his address, Gachagua stated, “There is even a bigger scheme to dismantle the Supreme Court ahead of 2027 elections. A budget has been set aside through the National Intelligence Service (NIS) and all those petitions you are seeing against Martha Koome, and judges of the Supreme Court is the machinations of the state.”

    Gachagua further elaborated that the motive behind this alleged scheme is to establish a Supreme Court bench more amenable to the Ruto’s wishes. “They would like to put a Supreme Court bench that is amiable to what those in power want. We cannot accept. We want to ask the international community to keep an eye on Kenya,” he urged, calling for external oversight of Kenya’s judicial integrity.

    These accusations come at a time when political and legal battles are intensifying in Kenya. The Supreme Court has been a pivotal institution in maintaining checks and balances, notably during high-profile electoral disputes. The suggestion of undermining such a crucial arm of government raises serious concerns about the health of democracy in Kenya.

    The speculated disbandment of the Supreme Court would not only affect the current political landscape but could have long-lasting implications for judicial autonomy and electoral justice in Kenya.

    Alleged plot

    Gachagua alluded to the recent withdrawal of Koome’s security, terming it as one of the state’s strategy to scare the CJ and push her into resignation.

    “I want to ask my sister, Lady Justice Martha Koome, don’t be intimidated. Stay put. You are doing a good job. Continue making sure this is a country of rule of law and constitutionalism,” said Gachagua.

    On Thursday, January 23, Koome expressed concerns over the withdrawal of her security detail.

    In a letter addressed to Interior CS Kipchumba Murkomen and Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja, she highlighted the constitutional implications of such an act, describing it as a threat to judicial independence.

    Koome expressed further concern over the weakened capacity of the Judiciary Police Unit, taking issue with the withdrawal of a significant number of officers.

    Meanwhile, a duo of prominent lawyers have been on a mission to kick Koome and her colleagues at the Supreme Court out.

    Lawyers Ahmednasir Abdullahi and Nelson Havi used the X platform for the campaign against the judges whom they accused of “misbehaviour” and abuse of office.

    On January 17, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) confirmed receiving a petition from Havi seeking the removal of the bench.

    The commission maintained that the matter would be addressed in accordance with the established procedures and processes under the rule of law.

  • Blow To Ahmednasir’s Law Firm Clients As Supreme Court Reiterates The Ban Still Effective

    Blow To Ahmednasir’s Law Firm Clients As Supreme Court Reiterates The Ban Still Effective

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a case from the law firm of Ahmednasir Abdullahi saying that the ban they issued last year is still in effect.

    The judges declined to hear a lawyer from the firm of Abdullahi’s law saying that the ban against the Senior Counsel and his legal team from appearing before it is still effective.

    Last year in January all judges of the Supreme Court recused themselves from hearing any case involving the firm or its representatives.

    Chief Justice Martha Koome the president of the court reiterated to the lawyer who had appeared before them that the ban remains effective.

    She emphasized that no members of the firm could proceed in representing clients before the Supreme Court unless the ban is lifted.

    “We made a decision last year, January, where all the judges of this court recused themselves from hearing any matter from the firm of Ahmednasir or his employees or any other person holding brief for the firm. The reasons for recusal were cited in that matter. So when the matter was called out this morning, we noted that the firm of Ahmednasir is still on record,” Koome said.

    The court has now directed the client-petitioner to indicate how she wished her case to proceed and be determined, given the constraints imposed by the ban.

    “We direct the Registrar to issue a notice to the petitioner to appear within 14 days to indicate how she wishes to proceed with the matter in the event that she has not dealt with presentation the order of stay issued will stand vacated automatically,”court directed.

    Client’s case

    Lawyer Asli Osman on Tuesday pleaded with the apex court to allow the law firm to argue a landmark case on whether children born out of wedlock in Muslim set-ups should be allowed to inherit from their fathers.

    However, Chief Justice Martha Koome, her deputy Philomena Mwilu, Justices Mohamed Ibrahim, Smokin Wanjala, Isaac Lenaola, Njoki Ndung’u and William Ouko unanimously rejected Osman’s plea.

    In a ruling read by Justice Koome, the seven judges declared that if Fatuma fails to appear within the time limit, the orders issued stopping Rose Faith Mwawasi and Judith Malele Mwawasi from demanding part of the wealth left by Mombasa tycoon Salim Juma Hakeem will lapse.

    Fatuma moved to the Supreme Court after Court of Appeal Judges Gatembu Kairu, Pauline Nyamweya and George Odunga unanimously agreed that despite religion abhorring sex before marriage, it is unfair to sideline children born from such escapades when their fathers die.

    Islamic law dictates that where a child has been born out of a marriage, he or she can only inherit from the mother and not the father.

    However, Justices Kairu, Nyamweya and Odunga were of the view that the rights of a child supersede one’s marital status.

    According to them, there is no rational justification to prove that a child born in a marriage has a higher claim to wealth than one who is born outside matrimony.

    “To deny children born out of wedlock the benefit which accrues to other children born in wedlock on the basis of the alleged “sins” committed by their parents, in our view cannot be justified since it would mean that this court would be adopting “hurtful discrimination and stereotypical response” to a clear case of discrimination,” ruled the bench headed by Justice Kairu.

    “It is our view that culture that is harmful to a child in the sense that denies such a child his or her otherwise right to parental care and protection on the ground of marital status of the father and the mother cannot be countenanced,” the Judges ruled

    At the heart of the case was the wealth left by Mombasa tycoon Salim Juma Hakeem.  Juma died without a will on February 23, 2015 in Tanzania.

  • Havi Files Petition For The Removal Of CJ Koome, Supreme Court Judges

    Havi Files Petition For The Removal Of CJ Koome, Supreme Court Judges

    Former Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Nelson Havi has sustained his onslaught on the Judiciary and is now calling for the removal of Chief Justice Martha Koome and all the Supreme Court judges.

    Havi filed a petition to the Judiciary Service Commission (JSC) and urged the Commission to compel President William Ruto to form a tribunal and begin the process of firing the seven, accusing them of gross misconduct.

    According to Havi, there is reasonable apprehension in the legal fraternity and the general public that the recent practice of the Supreme Court of Kenya entertaining and determining appeals from the Court of Appeal on civil and commercial matters where colossal amounts of money is involved but which have no novel question of general public importance, is motivated by corruption.

    “I swear this Affidavit in support of the complaint against Justices Martha Karambu Koome, Philomena Mbete Mwilu, Mohammed Khadar Ibrahim, (Dr) Smokin C Wanjala, Njoki Ndungu, Isaac Lenaola and William Ouko and ask that the Judicial Service Commission recommends to the President of the Republic of Kenya the formation of a Tribunal to remove the Judges from office,” part of the affidavit read.

    Lost confidence

    Havi claims that there is a general consensus in the legal fraternity within the country that “the public has lost confidence in the Supreme Court as a result of its decisions.”

    “The Chief Justice of the Republic of Kenya and judges of the Supreme Court like Ceaser’s wife, ought not to even be under suspicion of corruption,” he says.

    Among the complaints he has listed concerning CJ Koome is the lack of leadership and direction as expected of a Chief Justice, especially compared to former CJ Evans Gicheru.

    “Unlike Honourable Mr Justice Evans Gicheru, Honourable Lady Justice Martha Karambu Koome has failed to provide leadership and direction for the Supreme Court of Kenya and the entire Judiciary,” his statement read.

    Havi claims that he has come to believe allegations made by  Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi that four of the Supreme Court judges had been bribed in their handling of the presidential election  petition.

    “I have demonstrated with instances herein above, how the seven judges of the Supreme Court have purported to enact laws to suit their interests, curtail and limit fundamental rights and freedoms, alter legal doctrines and principles, constituted themselves claimants in causes and proceeded to adjudicate those cause in disregard of trite law and express  constitutional and statutory provisions knowing well that there is no repreive to their unlawful actions and decisions,” he says.

    Determines appeal

    Havi also says the recent practice  by the Supreme Court to entertain and determines appeals from the Court of Appeal on civil and commercial matters involving colossal sums of money have left fears of  their possible involvement in corruption.

    “I do not understand what would motivate Judges of the Supreme Court if not corruption, to relegate themselves to the level of a Taxing Officer and start determining the quantum of instruction fees , a matter where no novel question of public importance is involved,” he states.

    He cites the case of Kenya Airports Authority versus Otieno Ragot and Company Advocates (2024) eKLR where Justices Koome, Ibrahim, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola allegedly unlawfully execised jurisdiction over a civil matter and altered a settled private law on ascertainment of instruction fees.

    He also cites the case of Geo Chem Middle East versus Kenya Bureau of Standards (2020) eKLR where Justice Mwilu, Ibrahim, Wanjala, Njoki and Lenaola declared themselves not to have jurisdiction over the matter and yet went ahead to determine it instead of disqualifying themselves.

    Havi, Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi and other senior lawyers have been calling for the resignation of CJ Koome for months citing deep-rooted corruption in the institution.

    Assume jurisdiction

    Havi was yesterday supported by Ahmednasir who, in a post on X, said the judges of the Supreme Court blatantly lie and assume jurisdiction when the Court in law has no jurisdiction to hear the petitions.

    “The Court is paid crazy money to assume jurisdiction and the deal ALWAYS is to overturn the judgment of the Court of Appeal,” he posted.

    Havi also referred to a 2022 contempt of court ruling in which he, alongside his Assisting Counsel Esther Ang’awa and fellow SC Ahmednassir, were convicted.

    “To that end, when the petition challenging the election of President William Ruto was filed, the seven Judges of the Supreme Court of Kenya acting through Honourable Lady Justice Martha Karambu Koome sent a message that the two of us I should not appear in the matter. We obliged and stayed away, ” Havi says in his petition.

    However, fresh details have emerged regarding the heightened clamour for changes in the Judiciary orchestrated by the two who were once sworn enemies.

    Ahmednasir initially kicked off the campaign on a revenge mission against CJ Koome and other Supreme Court judges after they barred him from ever appearing before them.

    This followed his endless attacks on the judges, whom he accused of corruption and incompetence.

    Critics of Ahmednassir have revealed that as a strong supporter of President William Ruto, he has to recruit an impressive array of supporters who saw the benefit of destabilising the Judiciary ahead of the 2027 elections, and several senior lawyers who themselves had personal beef against the Judiciary leadership.

    Some of his colleagues say Grand Mullah’s beef with the Judiciary has been due to his desire to wield control over the courts at the highest level.

    His career has been characterized by controversies. In 2014 for example, the LSK sought to suspend him from practising law for six months for insulting a judge. This decision was later overturned on appeal.

    Reports indicate that he has been using threats, judicial blackmail, and government connections to manipulate outcomes.

    Equally, Judiciary employees have even accused him of bullying them and spreading false accusations of corruption against judges when they refuse to be compromised.

    Ahmeddnassir’s name has also been linked to a Somali group which was accused of laundering ransom money paid to Somali pirates. It was Ahmednasir’s law firm that represented members of these cartels amid suspicion that he was used to launder the money. In an interview with a local media house in September 2021, Ahmednasir acknowledged that the allegations of his ties with the Somali pirates were known at the highest levels of government and because of that President Mwai Kibaki’s State House was initially opposed to him sitting in the Judicial Service Commission.

  • I Was Getting Up To Sh80M Bribes In Cash Daily, Sonko Exposes City Hall’s Corruption

    I Was Getting Up To Sh80M Bribes In Cash Daily, Sonko Exposes City Hall’s Corruption

    Former Nairobi Governor Mike Mbuvi Sonko has revealed how much he was getting paid in bribes from county revenue collection office during his tenure.

    In an interview on a local podcast, the former Governor said he could get up to Sh80 million depending on the day’s collection going to show how deeply corruption is entrenched in the city’s administration.

    Sonko said the bribe took him by shock as it came from his financial officers and was meant to buy his silence as they embarked on wanton looting. He said the trend rose his curiosity and he made the mistake of reporting this to Statehouse not knowing it would mark the beginning of his troubles as the governor.

    “I used to get around Sh50 million and this used to come daily, it could even go up to Sh80 million depending on the day’s collection. I realized that the county was making a lot of money but much was getting lost to corruption so I went to report it to former President Uhuru my boss and he even called President Ruto (his deputy then) to get my story,”

    “I only didn’t know I was going to dig my own grave. I had given them the clearest hint that Nairobi had money, and later Statehouse could come after me,”

    Sonko says the county could make up to Sh300 million daily collections but only about Sh50 million would end up in the accounts with the rest getting looted.

    following his meeting with the president, they planned to lay a trap to arrest the people behind the looting and he got wired by an intelligence operative he mentions as Mr. Mburu to get the perpetrators in action.

    “They put wires on me to record all the guys when they bring the money. I recorded them the next day when they brought the money and it went on, they could bring at a times Sh50M, Sh60M even up to Sh80m and all was in cash,” He said.

    Sonko then took the evidence back to Statehouse and after ascertaining, a decision was then made to digitize the revenue collection.

    A trap was then laid to arrest the city hall officers behind the scheme and eventually they were caught in action by EACC and DCI officers. Sonko says he still has the video clips of the entire operation while claiming his innocence.

    “I was trying to help fight corruption, I reported everything to the boss, how things turned around and my reputation tainted as the most corrupt leading to my impeachment I still don’t understand.” He said.

    “But I was fixed with corruption cases and in which I’ve been vindicated and very soon Kenyans will know the truth as to how all this happened.” He added.

    Sonko’s impeachment

    Mr Sonko was elected as Governor of the Nairobi City County during the 2017 general elections for a term of five years.

    On assumption of office, he served as Governor until December 17, 2020 when he was removed from office by way of impeachment.

    Passing the resolution to remove him from office, the Senate found him guilty of plundering public resources, persistently intimidating and molesting officers of the County Executive Committee and unlawfully using public fund to pay for his daughter’s travel to New York, USA.

    He was also found guilty of charges of persistently and wilfully using, publicizing and publishing abusive and unbecoming words and language as evidenced by his social media posts.

    Further that he made numerous rants in which he hailed abuses and conducted himself in a manner that undermines and demeans the office of the Governor.

    In a separate interview, Mr Sonko accused former President Uhuru of being behind his ouster. He said his removal from office and that of Kiambu governor Mr Ferdinand Waitutu was because they were not on good terms with the last regime.

    “My impeachment and that of Waititu were politically instigated because we differed with former President Uhuru. The system introduced Nairobi Metropolitan Services (NMS), and when I refused to sign for transfer of funds to NMS – because there was no law empowering us to do so – I was impeached,” Sonko said.

    He also claimed that his impeachment did not meet the required threshold since the assembly lacked the number after he allegedly took 65 MCAs to Kwale on the voting day. Mr Sonko was impeached after 88 MCAs out of 122 voted in favour of his removal.

    East African Court of Justice

    Sonko is challenging his impeachment in the East African Court of Justice based in Arusha.

    In July 2022, Sonko filed an application before the East African Court of Justice seeking to suspend implementation of the Supreme Court decision that upheld his impeachment.

    He says the decision of the Supreme Court and courts of Kenya was arrived at in an unjust manner.

    Its effect, Sonko said, is to curtail his political rights and the people he represents.

    He said the Presiding Judge at the High court who rendered the decision was then currently facing a disciplinary tribunal over his removal as a result of receiving bribes and influencing the decision that resulted in his removal from office.

    Sonko wants the EAC court to suspend the execution of the decision by the Apex court pending a hearing and determination of the application.

    Part of the complaint before the tribunal, he says, is that Chitembwe was biased and mischievous in the manner in which he handled his impeachment case.

    “The determination of the proceedings before the tribunal will have a bearing on the challenged judgment of the high court culminating in this appeal,” Sonko said.

    Sonko says it’s only fair if the Supreme court judgement is reviewed or set aside and heard under the circumstance that the conduct of Chitembwe would be considered.

    Currently, Johnson Sakaja is faced with similar corruption allegations pointing at a traditional trend. Evans Kidero, the initial city’s boss still battles corruption cases from his days in office to date.

  • 11 Lawyers Banned From Appearing In Supreme Court Alongside Ahmednasir Sues

    11 Lawyers Banned From Appearing In Supreme Court Alongside Ahmednasir Sues

    Eleven lawyers associates of Ahmednasir Abdullahi LLP a firm owned by Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi are now challenging orders barring them from making submissions before the Supreme Court.

    The Judges said they banned Ahmednassir over his continuous attacks on them which they described as demeaning. The lawyer has sustained attacks of the apex court judges, describing them as corrupt.

    “In view of the foregoing, it is the decision of this court, that henceforth and from the date of this communication, you shall have no audience before the court, either by yourself, through an employee of your law firm, or any other person holding brief for you,” said the CJ in a statement signed by the Registrar of Supreme Court Letizia Muthoni Wachira.

    And now Ahmednasir Abdullahi LLP alongside its 11 associates have individually sued the seven Supreme Court judges over the decision to ban the lawyer, his law firm and associates from appearing before the apex court in a  reaction to his criticism.

    The associates who are before the court are Asli Mohamud, Peter Muchoki, Irene Koech, Esther Wanga, Cohen Ananya, Khadijah Said Ali, Elizabeth Wangui, Benard Onyikwa, Tonny Towett and Mohamed Abdi.

    Ahmednasir and the associates represented by lawyer Issa Mansur, contends that the decision communicated to his law firm on January 18, 2024, by Supreme Court Registrar Letizia Wachira is both unlawful and unconstitutional.

    In the petition filed Monday, they assert that the letter received from the Supreme Court cites personal grievances held by the seven judges; CJ Koome, Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, Justices Mohammed Ibrahim, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u, Isaac Lenaola and William Ouko  against Ahmednasir, accusing him of conducting a campaign in the broadcast, print, and social media aimed at scandalizing, ridiculing, and denigrating the Court.

    He argues that the decision made by the seven judges does not stem from a judicial process exercising the Court’s constitutional and statutory jurisdiction as outlined in Article 163 of the Constitution or the Supreme Court Act. Rather, it represents an administrative decision without a legal foundation, lacking the juridical value of a judicial decision immune to challenge under the law, thus rendering it illegitimate.

    The law firm argues that all of these utterances reflect the personal opinions of lawyer Ahmednasir and are in accord with the freedom of expression rights protected under our Constitution.

    It is their argument they are not liable for the utterances of the veteran lawyer more so expressed in his private capacity.

    They claimed that some of the social media postings, media interviews and write-ups complied by the seven judges, and which allegedly damaged the reputation of the Supreme Court, were published as long ago as 2016.

    “None of the publications and utterances of Ahmednasir cited by the seven judges can be deemed to constitute of contempt of court by the petitioners to warrant the action taken by the judges to banish them from practicing before the Supreme Court,” argues the Muhrab building based law firm.

    Further, the publications in question do not constitute any serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice by the seven judges and Supreme Court judges are seasoned judicial officers who should be able to withstand robust criticism.

    Mansur emphasizes that the practical consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision is to ban Ahmednasir and his associates from appearing before the Court to represent their clients. This decision was communicated to them through a letter signed by Registrar L.M. Wachira two weeks ago.

    The letter explicitly stated that Ahmednasir and his law firm should no longer have an audience before the Supreme Court, whether in person, through an employee of the firm, or any other individual acting on their behalf.

    In their application, the firm, argues that the decision made by the seven judges is administrative rather than judicial in nature. They contend that if the statements complained of made by Ahmednasir are defamatory, the Supreme Court had the option to initiate legal proceedings against him rather than resorting to a banishment from practicing before the Court.

    According to Mansur, the ban does not enjoy immunity from being challenged before the lower courts as it lacks legitimacy.

    “The ban which is for an unspecified period of time is a draconian step against the petitioners and all advocates presently and in future, working for the first petitioner firm from representing any client at the Supreme Court,” he said.

    The law firm and associates want the court to find that Supreme Court judges and Muthoni are not above the law.

    Mansur wants the High Court to find that the ban was an administrative decision and it cannot be used to banish Ahmednasir’s law firm, partners and associates from appearing before that court.

    They are also seeking orders to quash the ban and costs.

    A similar case was filed by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), which argued that the top court had usurped its powers to deal and discipline advocates adding that the ban was unfair as it also included persons and litigants who were not a part of the issue.

    In response, Supreme Court judges want the case filed by LSK challenging the decision barring Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi from appearing before them dismissed, arguing that the High Court has no power to deal with the matter.

    Through Senior Counsel Kamau Karori and James Ochieng’ Oduol, the Supreme Court judges led by Chief Justice Martha Koome said they will be asking the court to strike out the petition.

    “Jurisdiction is everything. Without jurisdiction, the petition cannot stand and the issues raised in it cannot be addressed,” Mr Oduol submitted.

    Meanwhile, the decision by the Supreme Court still stands and neither Ahmednasir nor his law firm is allowed to appear before the court.

    On January 18, 2024, the Supreme Court made good its stand not to accord Ahmednasir audience as he prepared to represent his client in a Sh2 billion land case.

    The case was to be heard virtually when Supreme Court judges led by Koome said they will not proceed with the case if the lawyer and or any of his agents were part of the defence.

    The court then adjourned and six judges recused themselves.

  • Lawyer Ahmednasir Suffers First Blow In Supreme Court

    Lawyer Ahmednasir Suffers First Blow In Supreme Court

    Senior Counsel SC Ahmednasir Abdullahi has suffered his first court appearance ban after his firm or himself couldn’t be allowed to appear before the Supreme Court.

    Ahmednasir was supposed to represent Mama Cherubet Chelugui before the Supreme Court Wednesday morning.

    Mama Chelugui who just turned 94 and who is critically ill won damages worth over Kshs 1 billion against former president Daniel Arap Moi in the High Court and the Court of Appeal over an alleged land grabbing in the 1980s.

    However, on his X account, SC Ahmednasir who joined the Supreme Court proceedings on the sidelines commended Chief Justice Martha Koome for giving his client an option to engage another lawyer and prioritized the hearing of the consolidated appeal due to his client’s illness.

    The Supreme Court of Kenya has decided to bar Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi from appearing before the court, citing relentless attacks and unsubstantiated accusations against the court’s integrity and members in various media.

  • Lawyer Ahmednasir To Contest Supreme Court Ban At East African Court

    Lawyer Ahmednasir To Contest Supreme Court Ban At East African Court

    Lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi says he will be moving to the East African Court of Justice to challenge the decision by the Supreme Court to ban him and his firm from appearing from it.

    Ahmednasir on his X account further insisted that the Judiciary headed by Chief Justice Martha Koome is corrupt.

    “I have instructed my lawyers to file a petition in the East African Court of Justice at Arusha to seek legal redress against KOOME’s judicial skulduggery and niggling shenanigans. I will not waste time in going to KOOME’s CORRUPT COURT!” he stated.

    The ban signed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court accuses Ahmednasir of conducting a campaign on print, electronic and social media while scandalising the court.

    Abdullahi has recieved support from colleagues in the legal profession including James Orengo who says the ban by the Supreme Court is arbitrary.

    Law Society of Kenya President Eric Theuri described the ban ias ‘illegal, irregular and paints the Court as a purveyor of injustice.

    Advocate’s lobby group now wants the Apex Court to retract Ahmednasir’s expulsion and offer an apology to the advocate.

    The ban issued on Thursday and signed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court L. Wachira was issued by the full bench of the apex court.

    The judges said the ban also applies to associates in his law firm.

    “In view of the foregoing, it is the decision of this Court, that henceforth and from the date of this Communication, you shall have no audience before the Court, either by yourself, through an employee of your law firm, or any other person holding brief for you, or acting pursuant to your instructions. Much as this decision is bound to affect those who may have instructed you to represent them before the Court, it is untenable that you would seek justice in the very institution and before the very Judges, whose reputation and integrity you never tire of assaulting,” the Supreme Court Registrar wrote in the letter to the Senior Counsel.

    The court accuses Ahmednassir of conducting a campaign on print, electronic, and social media while scandalizing the court.

  • Supreme Court Rules On Confusing Muruatetu Case

    Supreme Court Rules On Confusing Muruatetu Case

    Chief Justice Martha Koome on Tuesday, July 6, had her first sitting at the Supreme Court where her first order of business was to end the confusing jurisprudence established by the famous Muruatetu case.

    Koome directed that the Muruatetu jurisprudence was only applicable in cases where accused were given the mandatory death sentence, as provided under sections 203 and 204 of the penal code.

    Additionally, Koome stated that all those who had been handed the mandatory death sentence would be given a chance to file appeals and get new sentences.

    Muruatetu is a case in which a convicted murderer, Francis Karoki Muruatetu, was immortalised following a landmark case where he successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Kenya to declare the mandatory death penalty unconstitutional.

    The lower courts, however, have at times interrupted the famous ruling as declaring all mandatory court sentences as unconstitutional.

    Judges and magistrates have used their discretion to deviate from stipulated mandatory sentences, especially in sexual offences matters.

    During the interviews for the next Chief Justice, Judge Said Chitembwe courted controversy after he indicated that he had used the Muruatetu precedent in a case where a 24-year old was accused of defiling a minor.

    The judge declined to hand over the mandatory 20-year prison sentence, arguing that the court could consider the fact that the minor had acted as an adult in order to entrap the accused.  The ruling was awarded the Golden Bludgeon for the worst judgment in the world 2017.

    Koome, on her part, made it clear to the Chief Justice interviewing panel that she would limit the use of the Muruatetu case to the mandatory death sentence.

    In re-hearing the charge for murder, Koome stated that the court would consider; the age of the offender, being a first-time offender, character and record of the offender, physical and psychological effects of the offense to the family and remorsefulness of the offender.

    “All offenders who have been subjected to the mandatory death penalty and desire to be heard on sentence will be entitled to resentence hearing.”

    “In resentencing and hearing, the court must record the prosecutions and the appellant’s submissions as well as those of the victims before deciding a suitable sentence,” she added.

    Muruatetu and his co-accused Wilson Thirimbu were convicted for the murder of Nairobi businessman Lawrence Githinji in 2000.

    They were also sentenced to death as provided by Penal Code 204 which states that “Any person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to death.”

    However, after the duo had spent 14 years in prison, they filed a petition at the Supreme Court.

    The mandatory death penalty was then declared unconstitutional.