The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) is at the center of a heated debate over its independence after deleting a strong statement directed at Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen.
The move sparked accusations from former LSK President Nelson Havi, who claimed that current president Faith Odhiambo “was ordered to pull down the statement.”
The controversy began after CS Murkomen, during a media interaction on 15 September 2025, defended the deployment of plainclothes and masked police officers during protests.
This was despite a High Court ruling in April 2025 that had explicitly banned such actions. Murkomen argued that the court’s decision was “subject to interpretation” and insisted that he would not “allow our police officers to put their lives in danger by wearing a uniform when they shouldn’t.”
Many observers saw this as a direct challenge to the authority of the judiciary.
In response, LSK under Odhiambo issued a press statement on its official platforms reminding government officials that court orders are binding and cannot be selectively interpreted.
The statement criticized Murkomen for implying that the executive could override court decisions, saying that his comments placed himself, the National Police Service, and the executive branch “on a non-existent pedestal of supremacy in law.” It also warned that police officers disguising themselves during protests would be committing contempt of court.
Just hours later, the statement was removed from LSK’s accounts. The deletion immediately raised questions about the reasons behind it, fueling speculation of undue influence from the executive.
Nelson Havi publicly accused Odhiambo of bowing to government pressure, writing on X that “one cannot work for the Executive and oversight it at the same time. LSK President was ordered to pull down the statement.”
Havi’s comments coincided with ongoing debates about Odhiambo’s independence following her appointment in August 2025 as vice-chairperson of a government panel on compensation for protest victims. Critics argue that holding such a government-linked role compromises LSK’s ability to remain impartial and independent.
Several members have called for her resignation to restore the credibility of the society.
Odhiambo has defended her actions, insisting that her focus remains on assisting victims and that she continues to operate independently from executive control.
Nevertheless, the deleted statement and Havi’s allegations have intensified scrutiny on the LSK, raising doubts about whether the society can effectively hold the government accountable.
The incident has sparked wider concern among lawyers and civil society about the future of LSK’s role as a guardian of the rule of law in Kenya.
This controversy highlights the tension between professional independence and government influence, leaving many to question whether the LSK can maintain its authority in defending legal standards without appearing aligned with political interests.
