Judges urge LSK to suspend court boycott, embrace dialogue

Judges urge LSK to drop court boycott and pursue dialogue. [Courtesy]

The standoff between the Bench and the Bar escalated Tuesday after the Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association (KMJA) urged the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) to reconsider its planned nationwide boycott of court proceedings, warning that the action would primarily punish ordinary Kenyans seeking justice.

The response comes just hours after the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), led by President Charles Kanjama, announced an indefinite targeted boycott of several judges and judicial officers, including Chief Justice Martha Koome and her deputy Philomena Mwilu, set to begin on Thursday over allegations of judicial misconduct, delays, registry inefficiencies and accountability concerns.

In a statement signed by KMJA President Justice Peter Mulwa, the association said it respects the LSK's role in promoting the rule of law but maintained that withdrawing advocates from court proceedings would undermine the constitutional rights of litigants.

"It is precisely because we take these concerns seriously that we respectfully urge the LSK to reconsider a boycott, whether general or targeted. A withdrawal from court proceedings does not fall on the institution alone; its immediate and heaviest cost is borne by litigants," Mulwa says

The association acknowledged concerns raised by lawyers over delays in delivery of judgments, registry inefficiencies, case management and judicial accountability, saying the Judiciary has already recognised the challenges and is actively implementing reforms.

"The Association does not take lightly the concerns its members have raised regarding delays, registry inefficiencies, case management and judicial accountability. These are concerns that the Judiciary itself has acknowledged and is actively working to address," the KMJA President stated.

KMJA also questioned the legality and propriety of the targeted boycott against judges who have obtained court orders stopping disciplinary or investigative processes, noting that several of them have active cases before the courts.

"Several of the judicial officers named in the Society's list, including members of the Supreme Court bench, are presently before courts of competent jurisdiction exercising their lawful right to be heard on matters that remain sub judice."

The judges' body warned that directing advocates not to appear before those judicial officers simply because they sought court protection risks being read as an attempt to influence the outcome of pending proceedings" and "sits uneasily with Article 160(1) of the Constitution.

On corruption allegations, KMJA reiterated its support for accountability but insisted complaints should be pursued through established constitutional mechanisms.

"The KMJA maintains a zero-tolerance position on judicial misconduct and corruption in any form, and supports full, prompt and impartial investigation of any credible allegation," Justice Mulwa said.

The association encouraged the LSK to submit evidence-backed complaints to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman, warning that public naming of judges before formal investigations risks prejudicing due process.

KMJA further acknowledged that court backlog remains a major concern but argued that the problem cannot be solved through court boycotts.

"Reducing backlog is therefore a shared responsibility requiring coordinated efforts by the Bench, the Bar, prosecutorial agencies, investigative bodies and all justice sector institutions. Sustainable solutions will only be achieved through collaboration rather than cessation of court proceedings."

Calling for dialogue instead of confrontation, KMJA invited the LSK to an urgent joint meeting through the National Council on the Administration of Justice, Court Users Committees or a dedicated Bar-Bench forum.

"The Judiciary and the Legal profession are partners in the administration of Justice... KMJA proposes that the concerns raised be pursued through structured, urgent dialogue rather than a boycott," She added.

The latest intervention comes after the Judiciary on Monday insisted that all courts across the country will remain open, despite the planned boycott, maintaining that court users should not be denied access to justice.