Chief Justice Martha Koome has criticised Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdulahi, Nelson Havi and Esther Ang’awa for castigating the Supreme Court of Kenya (SCORK) on social media.

According to SCORK some commentaries the three counsels made on their social media platforms were meant to influence, intimidate or scandalise the court.

"In the course of writing this judgement, the court observed with concern the commentaries on the pending judgement carried out in the social media by some counsel some of whom are appearing in this matter. The contents of those social media commentaries were in our view meant to influence, intimidate or scandalise the court," Koome said.

Koome said that if the conduct is not checked, it will erode the confidence and the dignity of the court.

She said it would also amount to professional misconduct by any counsel to comment on the matter that is pending before the court.

Read More

  1. Tuju pains as court clears way for auction of Karen property over Sh4.5 billion debt
  2. Senator Orwoba's call for stricter X regulation sparks outrage in Kenya
  3. Supreme Court to decide fate of Finance Act 2023 after hearing appeal by Govt

“It would also amount to unprofessional conduct, especially by a counsel appearing in this matter, and even counsel who does not appear in this matter but know very well that they cannot comment on a matter that is pending judgement,” Koome said.

Koome noted that the practice has deep roots and should be stopped.

“It is a well-established practice that counsel and indeed parties should refrain or directly try to improperly influence the court to rule in one way or the other,” said the CJ.

“Once judgement has been reserved and judges retreated to consider submissions and write judgements, learned counsel Mr Nelson Havi and Ms Esther Ang’awa who appeared for the first to the fifth respondent took to the social media; Twitter on different occasions on 19 February and 15 February 2022 and they cast aspersions on the court.” 

The CJ said for counsel to appear before the apex court and then proceed to have unnecessary diatribe, insults and speculations on a pending judgement amount to unethical conduct on the parts of the counsel.

“The use of social media to disparage the court with the intention of lowering the dignity and the authority of the court or influencing the outcome of the case pending before the court is a trespass from the bound of legitimate advocacy and moves to the realms of professionalism to professional misconduct,” Koome said.

Koome also chastised Ahmednasir for his conduct on social media 

“Equally culpable is the conduct of senior counsel. Mr. Ahmednasir Abdulahi, who though not counsel appearing in this matter, took the lead role in disparaging and besmirching the court as evidenced from his posts on Twitter on 8th February 2022, 15th February and even as late as yesterday, the 29 March 2022,” she said.

The CJ also advised advocates should familiarise themselves with the code of standards of professional practice and ethical conduct Gazette notice number 5212 and strive to conduct themselves in a manner that preserves and strengthens the dignity, honour and ethics of the profession. 

She further cautioned advocates from such conducts 

"Consequently, advocates should refrain from conducts that amount to indirectly attempting to influence decisions pending before courts," said the CJ.

"Relevant to the use of social media, we wish to draw the attention of advocates standards of professional practise and ethics conduct number 10 that spell out what is inappropriate conduct," Koome said."