Chief Magistrate Stella Atambo Seeks High Court Order to Halt LSK Boycott

• Chief Magistrate Stella Atambo has asked the High Court to stop the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) from implementing its ongoing boycott of court proceedings, an application which the High Court declined to suspend.
• Atambo argues that the proposed boycott is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and threatens access to justice.
• She believes that complaints against judges and magistrates should only be handled by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).
• The LSK's actions are seen as a direct assault on due process and constitutionalism.

Atambo argues that complaints against judges and magistrates should only be handled by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), as it is the constitutional body mandated to investigate and determine disciplinary matters involving judicial officers.

The ongoing boycott by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has set off alarm bells for Chief Magistrate Stella Atambo, who believes it threatens access to justice and undermines judicial independence. The proposed action would prevent advocates, litigants, and members of the public from accessing the courts, effectively obstructing and impeding access to justice. This move is seen as a direct assault on due process and constitutionalism, with Atambo arguing that complaints against judges and magistrates should only be handled by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). The JSC's constitutional mandate is clear: investigating and determining disciplinary matters involving judicial officers. By attempting to bypass this process, the LSK risks undermining the administration of justice and denying Kenyans their constitutional right to have disputes heard and determined by the courts.

Atambo's concerns are rooted in her understanding of the legal framework governing judicial officers. According to her, neither the Law Society of Kenya Act nor the Advocates Act grants the LSK powers to organise or enforce a boycott of court proceedings. This means that any such action would be unconstitutional and impermissible. Furthermore, Atambo argues that resorting to organised boycotts amounts to an impermissible usurpation of the constitutional mandate of the JSC. She also points out that complaints against judges and magistrates should only be handled by the JSC, as it is the constitutional body mandated to investigate and determine disciplinary matters involving judicial officers.

Atambo's application for a High Court order to halt the LSK boycott, which the High Court declined to suspend, highlights the risk of external pressures and threats to judicial impartiality. This development underscores the need for lawyers and compliance officers to monitor developments on judicial independence in Kenya and advise clients accordingly. The case also raises questions about the limits of professional associations' powers and their potential impact on the administration of justice. Ultimately, Atambo's actions aim to protect the integrity of the judiciary and ensure that judges and magistrates can perform their duties without fear or intimidation.

This development highlights the risk of judicial officers facing external pressures and threats to their impartiality, emphasizing the need for lawyers and compliance officers to monitor developments on judicial independence in Kenya and advise clients accordingly.

Source: Original reporting via The Star