LSK's council must be more transparent

The Council of the Law Society of Kenya is facing perhaps the biggest internal rebellion the society has seen in recent times. The issue revolves around the proposed construction of an International Arbitration Centre. Actually it could be more of a hotel than an Arbitration Centre since it proposes to have more hotel rooms than Arbitration rooms but that's another story.

Many of those who have raised objections are not opposed to the project per se but to the opaqueness and lack of transparency that has informed the process to this particular stage. You see the Law Society likes to hold itself out as the guardians of transparency in all public affairs.

One of the Objects for which the society was established as set out in Section 4 of the Law Society Act is to protect and assist the Public in Kenya in all matters touching, ancillary or incidental to the law. This is why the law society makes the loudest noise on issues of governance and transparency especially in government.

It is in execution of this mandate for instance that the LSK commendably spared no expense in sourcing and vociferously distributing to its membership every single document relating to the conduct of the Anglo Leasing cases.

It is therefore great irony that the Council of the Society does not see it necessary to share the Arbitration Centre project details with its own membership. We advocates expected a running commentary and a strong LSK demonstrating how above board business is transacted.

The Council of the Society put out a notice for an SGM to be held on September 27, 2014 simply listing the agenda for the meeting as "LSK International Arbitration Centre". Now, the Council of the Law Society is composed of some serious lawyers rightly referred to as learned.

It taxes all powers of imagination to suppose that these educated fellows are somehow deficient in the art of writing notices of meetings. Deft composition skill is a tool acquired by most latest in their high school years. Such levity and lightness of meaning as we saw with the notice do therefore more than raise eyebrows.

What followed was a farce of an SGM where members were confronted with a totally different agenda, that of funding for the project. At the end of what many have described as a sham vote, it was resolved at that meeting that each advocate was to pay between Sh39,000 and Sh50,000 towards the construction of the Arbitration Centre.

When members got to learn of this development, they tried to find out more about the project. Was the project viable? Would it be sustainable? How would the project be funded seeing that even if members contributed the required amount, it still would not be sufficient to meet the cost? Who were the architects and contractors? Would members upon fruition of the projects be refunded money or receive dividends? And so on.

They LSK leadership gave these legitimate queries an icy reception which quickly escalated to downright hostility. Instead of illuminating the issues, LSK mandarins threw a slew of accusations at those seeking information.

Accordingly, anyone seeking explanations about the project were agent's of political forces out to wreck the LSK. The chairman of the society went on TV to allege that members could not have these documents since they contained "confidential clauses". Surely, the learned man comprehends that the contracts are with the LSK and the LSK is the Membership!

The Council of the LSK is nothing but an agent of the membership and it is trite law that an agent cannot invoke confidentiality as against his own principle. Something is clearly afoot. However, this reaction from the council and the chairman is not new it is a reflection of attitudes long held towards certain members of the society, especially younger advocates. We are not equal members.