Debate over appointment of LSK boss by Ruto misses the point

Public debate in Kenya often has a way of chasing shadows while missing the substance. The ongoing controversy over Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Faith Odhiambo’s co-chairing of President William Ruto’s Panel of Experts on Compensation of Victims of Protests is a case in point.

Most people have reduced the discussion to whether the panel itself is good or bad, useful or useless, noble or cynical.

But that is not the real issue. The core question has little to do with the panel’s mission. It is about constitutionalism and the institutional integrity of the Law Society of Kenya.

The Constitution establishes a clear separation of powers and assigns roles to the Executive, the legislature, and the Judiciary. When protests turn violent, resulting in killings, injuries, or destruction of property, accountability falls squarely within the justice system: Police must be investigated, perpetrators prosecuted, and victims compensated through judicial processes. To create a presidential panel to perform what is essentially the Judiciary’s role raises obvious questions of constitutionality.

This is where the LSK’s position becomes critical. The LSK is not just another professional association. It is, under section 4 of the Law Society of Kenya Act, a statutory guardian of the rule of law. Its mandate includes advising the government on legal policy, protecting the public interest, and upholding the Constitution. In moments when executive action threatens to sidestep or dilute constitutional principles, the LSK has a duty to interrogate, challenge, and, where necessary, resist.

That is why the question before us is not whether Ms Odhiambo is personally well-meaning, or whether the panel might produce useful recommendations. The real issue is whether it is proper, in the absence of a formal resolution by the LSK, for its sitting president to take up co-chairmanship of a body whose constitutionality is, at best, doubtful.

It is worth recalling that the LSK has historically defined itself by its independence. During the single-party era, it became a bulwark against authoritarian excess, sometimes at great personal cost to its leaders. It spoke truth to power when others fell silent. That legacy imposes a higher duty on its current leadership: To act only in ways that are consistent with the Society’s mandate, not to lend legitimacy to questionable executive experiments.

If there exists a formal resolution by the LSK Council directing its president to serve on the panel, then Odhiambo is entitled to stay on, acting not as an individual but as an agent of her institution. But if no such resolution exists, then she has no basis to continue serving. To do so would not just be a personal misstep; it would be an institutional compromise.

This is not an argument against engagement with government. Engagement, when properly structured, is part of democratic governance. But there is a line between engagement and co-option. The difference lies in process, mandate, and accountability. If the LSK collectively decides, through its Council, that it wishes to participate in such a panel, then its president’s role is grounded in institutional legitimacy. If not, her participation risks turning the Society’s independence into an individual discretion, which undermines its authority.

This debate, therefore, requires intellectual honesty. To support the LSK president’s involvement on grounds of good intentions is to miss the constitutional forest for the political trees. The LSK’s authority does not flow from the personal character of its leaders but from its statutory mandate and its fidelity to the Constitution.

Kenya today faces a constitutional moment. Executive overreach has become normalised, with institutions either captured or sidelined. The Judiciary is under pressure. Parliament has become subservient. In such a context, the independence of professional bodies like the LSK is not a luxury but a necessity. Every time that independence is blurred, Kenyans lose another shield against arbitrary power.

Odhiambo is an able lawyer and a respected voice. Her tenure so far has been admirable. But, with tremendous respect to her, the office she occupies is larger than any individual. That office demands that the LSK president act with the weight of institutional legitimacy, not personal discretion. If the Society, after proper deliberation, resolves that its president should sit on the panel, then she should serve boldly. If it has not, then she must withdraw.

The panel’s usefulness is secondary. The constitutional question is primary. The constitutional question is this: Does the LSK lend its president to a body that appears to usurp judicial functions without first interrogating and resolving the matter internally?

The answer to that question will determine not just the future of one panel but the credibility of the LSK as a guardian of the rule of law. It is not about personalities or even about the victims’ compensation mission. It is about whether the LSK remembers what it stands for; independence, constitutional fidelity, and the courage to resist co-option.

History will not judge the LSK by how warmly it embraced presidential invitations. It will judge it by how faithfully it stood by the Constitution when it mattered most.