Two lawyers file petition seeking removal of Ahmednassir Abdullahi as senior counsel

Two lawyers have filed a petition before the Law Society of Kenya’s Committee on Senior Counsel seeking the removal of Ahmednassir  Abdullahi from the role of senior counsel.

In their petition filed on Wednesday 29, 2025, lawyers Paul Kiragu Wathuta and John Murimi Njomo petitioned the committee to find that Ahmednasir has disentitled himself of the rank and dignity of Senior Counsel by his established and repetitive conduct.

The petition has been filed under Rule 4(c) and Rule 15 the advocates (Senior Counsel Conferment and Privileges) Rules, 2011. The rule empowers the committee to remove the name of a person who ceases to meet the qualifications from the Roll of Senior Counsel either on its or on the application of a member of a Society.

The lawyers accuse Ahmednasir of persistent unacceptable conduct which is incompatible with the conduct expected of a member of a legal profession, much less a senior counsel.

They have repeatedly disparaged the judiciary by vilifying the judicial officers and the judiciary without a sense of accountability, “Ahmednasir’s modus operandi is to make allegations.”

His hollow accusations are neither followed by a complaint before the relevant bodies nor by a personal responsibility to back the claims. He has become a master of fickle attacks on the judiciary without providing evidence of any misdoing by the judiciary and its officials.

Contrarily, the values and principles of ethical conduct require Senior Counsel to uphold the professions dignity and honour and reflect its best.

He is also accused of weaponising his X (formerly twitter) as a tool maligning judges, with a master of reckless claims that undermine the standing of the legal profession.

“Clearly, the Senior Counsel attacks are willful, sustained and designed to undermine the courts’ dignity and public confidence in the administration of justice. This is a case of a repeat temeritous offender displaying a pattern of disdain or contempt towards the judiciary,” the petition reiterates.

The lawyers says that the petition is made in good faith and from the petitioner’s conviction of the need to protect the administration of justice.

The privileges that come with the Senior Counsel title include wearing special robes similar to the robes of the Court of Appeal judges, sitting in front seats, their cases are also given priority in court.

In January last year,  Ahmednassir was banned from appearing before the Supreme Court over what the court termed as years of consistently distasteful remarks made against the institution and its judges on various media platforms.

The Supreme Court, in a strongly-worded letter drafted by Registrar L.M Wachira, also barred employees of Ahmednasir’s law firm from filing cases before it, while acknowledging that the decision will also affect the vocal advocate’s client list and their respective cases.

The Registrar noted that it defeats purpose for Ahmednasir Abdullahi, to appear before the very institution and individuals that he constantly berates in his media engagements.

The Supreme Court, last week, refused to hear a lawyer from Ahmednasir Abdullahi Advocates LLP, a firm owned by lawyer Ahmednasir , with the court asserting that the ban against his firm and legal team from appearing before it is still effective.

“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,” noted Justice Koome.

On Wednesday January 29, 2025, lawyer Prof Patrick Lumumba wrote a letter to Justice Koome beseeching the court to revisit its ruling and reverse the decision against Ahmednasir and advocates practicing in his law firm.

“Your Ladyship if Mr Ahmednasir Abdullahi SC has committed any offence known to law he should be cited and given the opportunity to defend himself,” Lumumba stated.

Lumumba indicated that, the manner in which the supreme court dealt with the issue denied Abdullahi a holder of valid practicing certificate that affirms his competence, adherence to the law and right to practice and access to the highest court.

Lumumba terms the action as a direct affront to the very foundation of the legal system not only being an attack on him.

He also stated that the disciplinary punishment imposed on him who is a partner in law firm can justifiably extend to the employees and the agents of the firm, thereby affecting their right to earn a livelihood and the firm’s ability to represent clients in the Supreme Court.

In his view, Lumumba said that the action of the apex court sets a precedent which must be subjected to scrutiny,

“If Mr Abdullahi SC has scandalised the court as specified in the communication dated January 18, 2024, the right way is as stipulated in the law.”

He mentioned the grounds under which an advocate can be denied audience and the relevance sections of the law.

Contempt of court is one of the ground under Section 5 of the Judicature Act (Cap 8, laws of Kenya) where an advocate engages in conduct that directly interferes with the administration of justice such as obstructing court’s proceedings or insulting the divinity of the court.

Another reason for an advocate to be denied audience is professional misconduct which is cited under Section 56(1) of the Advocates Act where an advocate is found to have engaged in a serious ethical.