NAIROBI, Kenya — A storm has erupted within Kenya’s legal fraternity after the Council for Legal Education (CLE) gazetted a Chinese national among candidates eligible for admission to the Bar, triggering sharp questions over compliance with the Advocates Act.
In a Gazette Notice dated December 24, 2025, CLE listed 163 candidates who it said were compliant and eligible for admission as advocates.
Among the names was that of a Chinese citizen, a move that immediately drew scrutiny from lawyers who cited Section 12 of the Advocates Act, which restricts admission to Kenyan citizens and nationals of East African Community (EAC) partner states.
Section 12 of the Act provides that “no person shall be admitted as an advocate unless he is a citizen of Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, or Tanzania and is duly qualified in accordance with section 13.”
Following the backlash, CLE moved to distance itself from responsibility for the apparent contradiction, insisting that gazettement does not amount to admission to the Bar.
“The Council of Legal Education only gazettes candidates who have passed the Advocates Training Programme (ATP) examination and successfully undertaken pupillage,” CLE said in a statement. “Compliance is only part of the eligibility criteria for admission to the Bar.
Another eligibility criterion includes nationality. The issue of eligibility for admission is canvassed once a candidate petitions for admission to the Bar.”
According to CLE, the final determination on whether a candidate is admitted is made after a separate review of suitability at the admission stage, and not at the point of gazettement.
However, the explanation has failed to quell disquiet among advocates, some of whom argue that gazettement as a “compliant” candidate creates a legitimate expectation of admission.
Former Law Society of Kenya (LSK) president and Senior Counsel Nelson Havi questioned how a non-EAC national could be cleared at any stage of the process.
“If this is true, the CLE and the Council of the Law Society of Kenya owe us an explanation,” Havi said in a social media post reacting to the notice.
LSK Vice President Mwaura Kabata said the society had sought clarification from CLE following concerns raised by members. According to Kabata, CLE explained that the Mandarin-speaking applicant has a Kenyan parent, an argument he dismissed as legally untenable.
“Even with the explanation that the applicant has a Kenyan parent, the law does not allow that applicant to succeed,” Kabata said, maintaining that citizenship — not parentage — is the decisive legal test.
Under Section 13 of the Advocates Act, a person is considered duly qualified if they have passed relevant examinations of a recognised university in Kenya and hold, or are eligible for conferment of, a law degree approved by CLE.
But legal practitioners note that academic qualification alone cannot override the nationality requirement set out in Section 12.
The controversy has reignited broader concerns about governance and transparency at CLE, which has in recent years faced sustained criticism from law students, advocates, and professional bodies over examination processes, accreditation standards, and regulatory consistency.
Some lawyers argue that the current dispute exposes structural weaknesses in how eligibility checks are conducted, warning that, unless clarified, the issue could invite litigation and undermine public confidence in the legal profession’s gatekeeping mechanisms.
Others caution that the matter may test constitutional principles on equality, citizenship, and professional regulation, particularly if the candidate in question challenges exclusion at the admission stage after being gazetted as compliant.
As pressure mounts, legal practitioners are calling for a definitive interpretation of the Advocates Act and clearer coordination between CLE, the Law Society of Kenya, and the judiciary to avoid similar controversies in the future.
For now, the gazettement has become the latest flashpoint in ongoing calls for reform of Kenya’s legal education and admission framework, with the profession closely watching how the issue will be resolved at the point of admission to the Bar.
