Ahmednasir, Supreme Court judges end differences, to settle cases in court

Lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi appears on Spice FM on July 19, 2024. [File, Standard]

A white smoke has billowed at the Supreme Court after senior lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi and the judges decided to bury their differences.

Yesterday, High Court Judge Roselyne Aburili heard that Ahmednasir’s law firm had opted to withdraw the case, challenging the ban from appearing before the apex court judges.

In a give-and-take agreement, the court heard yesterday that Chief Justice Martha Koome, her Deputy Philomena Mwilu, and Justices Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u, Isaac Lenaola and William Ouko had also softened their stand and would settle their appeals in relation to the standoff.

 Ahmednasir’s lawyers said yesterday that the decision to withdraw the case against the judges followed their decision to allow him and the law firm to represent clients before the Supreme Court.

Initially, the judges accused Ahmednasir of relentlessly scandalising them.

"In view of the foregoing, it is the decision of this court, that henceforth and from the date of this communication, you shall have no audience before the court, either by yourself, through an employee of your law firm, or any other person holding brief for you," said the CJ in a statement signed by the Registrar of Supreme Court Letizia Muthoni Wachira.

And now Ahmednasir Abdullahi LLP, alongside its 11 associates have individually sued the seven Supreme Court judges over the decision to ban the lawyer, his law firm and associates from appearing before the apex court in a reaction to his criticism.

The associates who are before the court are Ali Osman, Peter Muchoki, Irene Jelagat, Cohen Amanya, Khadijah Said, Elizabeth Wangui, Bernard Ongeri, Tony Kiprotich and Mohammed Billow.

By the law firm taking the war to the High Court, Ahmednasir has formally beckoned for a bout from CJ Koome, Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, Justices Mohammed Ibrahim, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung'u, Isaac Lenaola and William Ouko.

Also sued are Muthoni, the Supreme Court and the Attorney General. In this case, their lawyer Issa Mansur argued that the decision by the apex court was not an outcome of a judicial process but rather an administrative one.

According to Mansur, the ban does not enjoy immunity from being challenged before the lower courts as it lacks legitimacy.

"The ban, which is for an unspecified period of time, is a draconian step against the petitioners and all advocates presently and in future, working for the first petitioner firm from representing any client at the Supreme Court," he said.

Mansur told the court that judges of the topmost court abused their power as they did not allow his clients to be heard before issuing the ban.

He argued that they failed to disclose which part of the Supreme Court Act, the Fair Administrative Action Act and the Advocates Act they relied on.

"In so far as the decision sanctions and or regulates the professional conduct of Mr Ahmednasir Abdullahi SC, no disciplinary proceedings have been instituted against the said senior counsel in respect to the matters complained in the said letter," he said.

The lawyer asserted that any of the seven judges who are aggrieved by Ahmednasir's comments should sue him.

"In fact, the arbitrary decision of the seven judges constituting the Supreme Court conveyed through the letter dated January 18, 2024, in paragraph four acknowledges that indeed the decision conveyed therein shall have adverse impact on clients who may have instructed the first petitioner to represent them but does not offer any remedy to mitigate the harshness of the wholly inappropriate action," said Mansur.

He said Ahmednasir is distinct from his law firm, as it has other partners and employees.

Further, he said that all others who were not a part of the standoff between the lawyer and the judges will suffer without being informed what sins they had committed.

"While it is evident that the actions taken by the first to seventh respondents is targeted at Mr Ahmednasir Abdullahi, it is pertinently clear that the petitioners stand to suffer in the dispute between the first to seventh response and Ahmednasir Abdullahi in his personal capacity and in the manner in which he has robustly exercised his freedom of expression in commenting on matters of public interest," the court heard.

On January 18, 2024, the Supreme Court made good its stand not to accord Ahmednasir audience as he prepared to represent his client in a Sh2 billion land case.

 The case was to be heard virtually when Supreme Court judges, led by Koome, said they would not proceed with the case if the lawyer and or any of his agents were part of the defence.

The court then adjourned and six judges recused themselves. Ahmednasir took to his X handle and said he is ready to make peace with the court, but gave conditions.

"Now that CJ Martha Koome today read the order of the Court where 6 judges recused themselves from the case I was to argue and further barring me from the court as long as they are members of the Court... I'm ready to MAKE PEACE with the court as follows," he posted on X.