The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has petitioned the High Court seeking to challenge the Supreme Court decision that permanently barred Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi together with employees of his law firm from appearing before it.

In the court papers filed at the Milimani High Court, LSK wants the unanimous decision by the seven judges of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Martha Koome overturned on grounds it is unconstitutional, unreasonable and against the rules of natural justice.

LSK argues that Ahmednasir together with his employees were never given an opportunity to be heard before the Supreme Court Judges made the decision to permanently bar them from appearing before the court and making submissions.

"It did not give Ahmednasir Abdullahi SC or any of his employees an opportunity to be heard, despite the serious nature of the allegations and its decision. It failed to consider other avenues of redress that were available (including those spelt out in Article 159(20(c) of the Constitution of Kenya) if the members of the Court were aggrieved by posts by Ahmednasir, " LSK states in the court papers.

The lawyer's body also contends that the apex court judges Koome, her deputy Philomena Mwilu and Justices Mohamed Ibrahim, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndungu, Isaac Lenaola and William Ouko did not consider the constitutional right of freedom of speech and expression as enriched in the constitution before the ban.

"The LSK is not aware of any complaints made to it by the members of the Supreme Court, members of the public or professional colleagues by virtue of the conduct of Ahmednasir, or by his publications," states Florence Muturi the CEO of LSK

According to Muturi, the decision by the top court is blanket in scope and final and yet is a livelihood-affecting penalty for both Ahmednasir and the employees of his firm and their clients.

She further contends that the ban as communicated by the court registrar last week does not make any allegations of professional misconduct by Ahmednasir or his employees.

"There is actual and obvious bias by the Supreme Court in coming to its decision," she argues.

Muturi adds the decision of the Supreme Court is calculated to punish Ahmednasir, his employees and his clients (both current and prospective). rather than to rectify any supposed misunderstanding generated by his publications in social media.

"The members of the Supreme Court in coming to the decision were in a position of actual conflict of interest in as far as they were implicated, in inter alia, corrupt conduct and incompetence," Muturi says.

Lsk says that the Supreme Court failed to consider other avenues of redress that were available before it made the ban

"The Supreme Court has, in its armory, tools with which to punish Advocates after their conduct has been established to be unbecoming, after following due process. These tools include contempt of Court, which the Court failed to exercise," The LSK CEO says.

The lawyers’ body also argues that in 1990 and early 2000s, at a time when corruption and incompetence were again said to be rife within the Judiciary, it was Ahmednasir who almost singlehandedly took onto the task of naming and shaming the judges, resulting in the dismissal of 23 judges.