Judicial boycott? Why CJ Martha Koome is under siege

LSK President, Charles Kanjama, during the Spice FM's morning show where he spoke about the planned courts boycott by lawyers over alleged corruption in the Judiciary. [Benard Orwongo, Standard]

Chief Justice Martha Koome is once again on the spot as a fresh push to eject her from office mounts, with lawyers threatening to boycott courts in a renewed confrontation that has plunged the Judiciary into crisis.

The latest push has opened a fresh battlefront between the legal profession and the Judiciary, with the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) accusing some judicial officers of using court orders to shield themselves from accountability while the targeted judges maintain they are entitled to constitutional protections and due process.

The boycott, set to begin this morning, marks the most aggressive action taken by Kenyan lawyers against serving judges and comes amid mounting pressure on Justice Koome, who also chairs the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

The Chief Justice is facing multiple petitions seeking her removal, alongside Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu and Supreme Court judges Smokin Wanjala, Isaac Lenaola and Njoki Ndung'u all of whom have moved to court to stop the JSC from processing the complaints against them.

Justice Mohamed Ibrahim died late last year, leaving Justice Mohammed Warsame, the court's newest member, as the only Supreme Court judge not caught up in the removal battle.

Koome alone faces at least three complaints before the JSC, with petitioners seeking her removal over allegations ranging from alleged abuse of administrative powers to claims of misconduct, although the complaints remain subject to due process and have not been determined by the commission.

The latest confrontation escalated on Monday evening after LSK President Charles Kanjama released a list of 14 judges and judicial officers whose courts advocates have been directed to boycott indefinitely.

Kanjama said the boycott would remain in force until court orders stopping actions by the JSC, Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) are lifted.

“The boycott will continue indefinitely until the respective court orders restraining the actions of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), and/or the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) are set aside,” Kanjama said.

The targeted boycott divided the affected judicial officers into two categories.

The first category comprises judges who have obtained court orders suspending or halting proceedings before the JSC.

They include Chief Justice Koome, Deputy Chief Justice Mwilu, Supreme Court judges Smokin Wanjala, Isaac Lenaola and Njoki Ndung’u, alongside High Court judges Anthony Ombwayo, Lucas Nalkuni and Dora Chepkwony.

Court of Appeal Judge Lucy Waithaka was also listed after obtaining orders stopping proceedings arising from a JSC petition filed by Philip Kipyegon Lelei.

The petition accuses Justice Waithaka of issuing two conflicting judgments in the same land dispute, allegations the JSC found disclosed a prima facie case warranting further inquiry.

Kibera Chief Magistrate Stella Atambo. [File, Standard]

Kibera Chief Magistrate Stella Atambo was also included after obtaining High Court orders suspending investigations and possible prosecution arising from an EACC probe into allegations that she solicited bribes from accused persons appearing before her court.

EACC alleges it recovered Sh2.07 million in cash inside a laptop bag during a search at her Syokimau residence, claiming the money was suspected proceeds of corruption.

Atambo has denied the allegations, arguing that the cash belonged to her husband and challenging the legality of the search and investigations.

The second category targets judicial officers who have obtained protection from EACC or DCI investigations.

They include Machakos Judge Josephine Mong’are, who obtained conservatory orders after being summoned by EACC over an alleged Sh10.4 million bribery scheme linked to a case involving former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju.

Court of Appeal Judge Sankale ole Kantai was also included after obtaining orders halting DCI investigations and JSC proceedings arising from petitions seeking his removal over allegations linking him to investigations into the murder of Dutch businessman Tob Cohen.

Justice Kantai has denied wrongdoing and challenged the proceedings, arguing that his constitutional rights have been violated.

Justice Kantai's case, decided in September 2025 by Justice Chacha Mwita, offers a template of how these petitions succeed: the court found that proceeding with JSC removal proceedings while a related petition was still pending would violate his right to a fair hearing, and issued a prohibition order against the JSC until another matter challenging investigations by DCI is resolved.

"A declaration is hereby issued that the decision by the Judicial Service Commission to proceed and consider the petitions... is a threat to violate his right to a fair hearing," Justice Mwita ruled before issuing an order prohibiting the JSC from considering the removal petitions until the related constitutional case is determined.

Following the release of the boycott list by LSK President Kanjama, several lawyers weighed in, with some supporting the move while others questioned its scope and the inclusion of particular judges.

Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi questioned why the boycott had not extended to judges who issued orders stopping the JSC from carrying out its constitutional mandate.

In posts on his X account, Ahmednasir argued that the boycott should also target judges who granted injunctions blocking investigations and disciplinary proceedings.

“Mr President Kanjama.. why are we also not boycotting the judges who issued ex parte injunctions stopping JSC from undertaking its constitutional mandate? We need to expand the net and stop this nonsense for good,” he posted.

In another post, the senior counsel described the boycott as a turning point in what he termed a fight for accountability within the Judiciary.

“They thought the day will never come. They thought they will just continue receiving bribes and sell justice to the highest bidder,” Ahmednasir posted, adding that the closure of the Supreme Court marked the beginning of what he described as the end for the affected judges.

Court of Appeal Judge Sankale ole Kantai was also included after obtaining orders halting DCI investigations and JSC proceedings arising from petitions seeking his removal over allegations linking him to investigations into the murder of Dutch businessman Tob Cohen. [File, Standard]

Lawyer Peter Wanyama, who represents Justice Sankale Ole Kantai in some of the proceedings, challenged the inclusion of the Court of Appeal judge in the boycott list, arguing that the dispute involving Justice Kantai had been misrepresented.

Wanyama said the case against Justice Kantai stemmed from allegations made in 2021 by the then Directorate of Criminal Investigations boss George Kinoti, who accused the judge in connection with investigations into the murder of Dutch businessman Tob Cohen.

According to Wanyama, the allegations were later challenged, with the Director of Public Prosecutions declining to approve charges due to what he described as lack of evidence.

He claimed that Justice Kantai later instructed him to file proceedings against the DCI over alleged wrongful arrest and that the matter was heard by Justice Chacha Mwita.

Wanyama further argued that an affidavit previously relied upon in the investigations was later withdrawn by a DCI officer who had signed it.

He questioned why Justice Kantai had been included in the boycott list, arguing that the JSC was not a party to the case he referred to.

“In this case, Mr Charles Kanjama has included this case in his list yet JSC is not a party to the case,” Wanyama said.

Wanyama maintained that while he supported judicial accountability, it should not be pursued through what he termed “falsehoods, lies and vindictive behaviour.”

“I support judicial accountability but the quest should not be premised on falsehoods, lies, and vindictive behaviour,” he said.

By Tuesday afternoon, the Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association (KMJA) had also entered the fray, rallying behind the affected judicial officers and urging the LSK to suspend the planned boycott, warning that the move would prejudice litigants and undermine access to justice.

In a statement signed by its President, Justice Peter Mulwa, the association cautioned that naming judicial officers who are lawfully before the courts as litigants risks being perceived as an attempt to influence the outcome of pending proceedings and is inconsistent with Article 160(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees judicial independence.

The association proposed structured dialogue through the National Council on the Administration of Justice or a dedicated Bar-Bench forum instead, while urging advocates to keep discharging their obligations to clients in the interim.

"The Association urges the Law Society of Kenya to suspend the proposed boycott and instead engage the Judiciary through structured dialogue under the National Council on the Administration of Justice or any other appropriate Bar-Bench forum. While judicial officers must remain accountable, the constitutional right of judges to challenge proceedings before competent courts must equally be respected," said KMJA President Justice Peter Mulwa.

He warned that refusing to appear before judges who have sought legal redress risks being perceived as an attempt to influence pending court proceedings and could undermine the constitutional principle of judicial independence, adding that it is litigants, not judicial officers, who stand to suffer most from prolonged disruption of court proceedings.

The standoff now places the country's justice system at a constitutional crossroads as the boycott lands days before a three-judge High Court bench comprising Justices Charles Kariuki, Lawrence Mugambi and Bahati Mwamuye is expected next month to determine whether the JSC can proceed with removal petitions against the country's highest judges or whether the complaints amount to an unconstitutional attack on judicial independence.

The removal bid rests on seven consolidated petitions filed by former LSK President Nelson Havi, Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi, former Cabinet Secretary Raphael Tuju and more than a dozen others, accusing the Supreme Court bench of gross misconduct and incompetence.

Koome and her colleagues have kept the complaints frozen at the JSC through conservatory orders that have stood since February 2025, and have twice beaten back attempts to have the presiding three-judge bench, Justices Charles Kariuki, Lawrence Mugambi and Bahati Mwamuye, recuse themselves, most recently in a November 14, 2025 ruling dismissing Havi's application as misconceived and without merit.

A separate petition filed by retired Kenya Air Force officer Captain Jammies Nyongesa Wafubwa accuses Koome of converting public court proceedings into private ones without public participation and of using her administrative powers to stall his appeals at the Court of Appeal.

The petition seeks her removal through a tribunal under Article 168 of the Constitution.

The JSC has yet to make its decision on that petition public

Every sitting Supreme Court judge is now enmeshed in litigation over their removal except Justice William Ouko and Justice Mohamed Warsame, appointed to the bench only in May 2026 to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Mohammed Ibrahim in December 2025, meaning the ouster campaign now effectively targets the entire "old guard" of the apex court.

Should the boycott and the removal petitions succeed in tandem, Kenya could face the unprecedented scenario of a Supreme Court unable to constitute a quorum, threatening the finality of election disputes, constitutional references and commercial appeals worth billions of shillings that depend on the apex court.

Under Article 168 of the Constitution, a tribunal to investigate a judge can only be appointed after the JSC certifies that a petition warrants such action.

None of the petitions against the sitting Supreme Court judges has reached that stage because court orders obtained by the judges have frozen the process.

For now, both sides are relying on the courts, with LSK pushing for accountability against judges it accuses of shielding themselves from scrutiny, and the targeted judges on due process arguments that have so far worked in their favour in every case decided to date.