They moved to the appellate court after High Court Judge Chacha Mwita said it has jurisdiction to hear and determine the case filed by the Law Society of Kenya challenging Ahmednasir’s ban on January 18 this year.
The Court of Appeal has suspended High Court proceedings regarding the decision by the Supreme Court to ban Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi and his law firm associates indefinitely.
The three-judge bench composed of Pauline Nyamweya, Aggrey Muchelule and George Odunga ruled that the case would remain suspended until an appeal filed by the Supreme Court is heard and determined.
They moved to the appellate court after High Court Judge Chacha Mwita said it has jurisdiction to hear and determine the case filed by the Law Society of Kenya challenging Ahmednasir’s ban on January 18 this year.
“The court has a duty to determine whether his rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights have been violated,” ruled Mwita.
Lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi alias “Grand Mullah” during a past interview with Citizen TV. /FILE
The Law Society of Kenya had sought to quash the decision of the Supreme Court that banned him and his law firm from appearing before it. In a petition lodged before the Milimani Law Courts, LSK through advocate Gitau Singh argued that the decision by the highest court in the country was unfair and unreasonable.
Gitau said that the court had condemned the senior counsel, his employees or any other person holding brief for him, without allowing them to be heard despite the ‘serious nature of the allegations and veracity of the decision’.
The apex court, while announcing the ban, strongly accused the prominent lawyer of relentlessly and unabashedly conducting a campaign in broadcast, print and social media aimed at scandalizing, ridiculing and outright denigrating the apex court.
“Through social media posts, media interviews and write-ups, you have accused the Court either in its constitutive persona, or individual membership, of acts of corruption, incompetence and outright bribery. This, you have done with reckless abandon, paying scant regard to the reputations of those who tirelessly serve on the Court in accordance with their Oath of Office,” added the statement.
The court further disclosed that notwithstanding the damage to the reputation of the Court, and the Judges who have served thereon over the years, both in its corporate and individual posture, and to render justice to those Ahmednasir represents, the Court exercised restraint by not deploying the punitive tools available to it against him.
Chief Justice Martha Koome, her deputy Philomena Mwilu and Justices Mohamed Khadhar Ibrahim, Dr. Smokin Wanjala, Justice Njoki Susanna Ndung’u, Isaac Lenaola and William Ouko argued that they warned the SC that such conduct would in the future, not go unpunished.
The nature of this ban and its implications for his practice raised questions about judicial accountability and the extent to which judges can be held liable for their decisions. This suspension is primarily to address a significant legal question: whether judges of the Supreme Court can be sued in the High Court.
Judges typically enjoy a degree of immunity from lawsuits related to their judicial functions. This principle is designed to protect judicial independence and ensure that judges can make decisions without fear of personal repercussions.
