NAIROBI, Kenya – The Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association (KMJA) has sharply criticized former Law Society of Kenya (LSK) Presidents Ahmednassir Abdullahi, Nelson Havi, and other unnamed legal practitioners for launching what it terms “systematic and sustained online attacks” against the Judiciary and its leadership.
The association’s statement, delivered by its President, Justice Stephen Radido, condemned the attacks as “unorthodox and unconstitutional,” warning that such behavior threatens the rule of law and the administration of justice.
KMJA’s response follows growing tensions, particularly after Chief Justice Martha Koome issued a related warning earlier this week.
Justice Radido emphasized that public attacks on judges through social media and other informal avenues amount to intimidation and undermine the Judiciary’s independence.
“Online attacks against Judges and Judicial Officers… pose an unwarranted distraction from the dispensation and adjudication of justice. These threats are an assault on the rule of law and a recipe for crippling our institutions,” Radido said.
The KMJA singled out legal practitioners who, instead of utilizing formal complaint mechanisms, have resorted to online platforms for criticism.
The association described this approach as not only reckless but also harmful to democratic processes and institutional integrity.
“It is disheartening for members of the Law Society of Kenya to abandon lawful channels for airing grievances and instead resort to cyberbullying and other eccentric tactics for ulterior motives,” Radido asserted.
The statement follows recent public criticisms, notably by Nelson Havi and Ahmednassir Abdullahi, over court rulings.
In October, Havi sharply criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the contentious Finance Act 2023, after the Court of Appeal had initially nullified it.
He further insinuated that Kenya’s Judiciary was failing to address pressing issues affecting citizens.
Ahmednassir, a vocal critic of judicial decisions, has similarly used social media to question rulings and leadership within the Judiciary.
Both lawyers’ remarks have fueled heated debates online, prompting KMJA to issue the stern rebuke.
While defending the Judiciary’s independence, KMJA acknowledged that judges and judicial officers are not immune to criticism.
Radido clarified that the association welcomes constructive engagement through lawful channels, including User Committees, Bar-Bench Committees, and media forums.
“We appreciate that at times we may fall short of expectations. Criticism is welcome when it is constructive, as it serves as a mirror for reflection and introspection. However, attacks meant to degrade and intimidate judicial officers risk degenerating the country into lawlessness,” Radido said.
The association’s statement, delivered by its President, Justice Stephen Radido, condemned the attacks as “unorthodox and unconstitutional,” warning that such behavior threatens the rule of law and the administration of justice.
KMJA’s response follows growing tensions, particularly after Chief Justice Martha Koome issued a related warning earlier this week.
Justice Radido emphasized that public attacks on judges through social media and other informal avenues amount to intimidation and undermine the Judiciary’s independence.
“Online attacks against Judges and Judicial Officers… pose an unwarranted distraction from the dispensation and adjudication of justice. These threats are an assault on the rule of law and a recipe for crippling our institutions,” Radido said.
The KMJA singled out legal practitioners who, instead of utilizing formal complaint mechanisms, have resorted to online platforms for criticism.
The association described this approach as not only reckless but also harmful to democratic processes and institutional integrity.
“It is disheartening for members of the Law Society of Kenya to abandon lawful channels for airing grievances and instead resort to cyberbullying and other eccentric tactics for ulterior motives,” Radido asserted.
The statement follows recent public criticisms, notably by Nelson Havi and Ahmednassir Abdullahi, over court rulings.
In October, Havi sharply criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the contentious Finance Act 2023, after the Court of Appeal had initially nullified it.
He further insinuated that Kenya’s Judiciary was failing to address pressing issues affecting citizens.
Ahmednassir, a vocal critic of judicial decisions, has similarly used social media to question rulings and leadership within the Judiciary.
Both lawyers’ remarks have fueled heated debates online, prompting KMJA to issue the stern rebuke.
While defending the Judiciary’s independence, KMJA acknowledged that judges and judicial officers are not immune to criticism.
Radido clarified that the association welcomes constructive engagement through lawful channels, including User Committees, Bar-Bench Committees, and media forums.
“We appreciate that at times we may fall short of expectations. Criticism is welcome when it is constructive, as it serves as a mirror for reflection and introspection. However, attacks meant to degrade and intimidate judicial officers risk degenerating the country into lawlessness,” Radido said.
