Ouster petition: JSC now seeks Koome's reply

The battle to remove Chief Justice Martha Koome from office has taken a fresh twist as the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) formally directed her to respond to a petition filed by city lawyer Christopher Rosana.

The petition stems from a controversial decision involving Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi.

A letter dated February 4, 2025, from Winfridah Mokaya, the JSC Secretary and Judiciary Chief Registrar, confirms that Chief Justice Koome has been granted time to file her response to the petition. 

The petition, originally lodged by Rosana on August 1, 2024, was presented before the commission for deliberation on January 24, 2025.

Following discussions, the JSC decided to formally request Koome’s response to the allegations.

“Reference is made to the above subject matter and your petition dated August 1, 2024. The petition was tabled before the commission on January 24, 2025, and upon deliberation, it was resolved that the Chief Justice be requested to submit a response,” Mokaya says in the letter addressed to Rosana.

Further deliberation

Mokaya further clarified that once the Chief Justice’s response is received, it will be placed before the commission for further deliberation, and a final decision on the petition will then be communicated to Rosana.

The move by the JSC to formally initiate the process of reviewing the petition marks a significant escalation in Rosana’s effort to have Koome removed from office. 

The core of Rosana’s petition revolves around a January 18, 2024, decision by the Supreme Court of Kenya, which saw the banning of lawyer Abdullahi from appearing before the court.

The decision, which was communicated through a letter from the Registrar of the Supreme Court, Letizia Wachira, terminated Abdullahi’s right of audience, not only for himself but also for anyone representing him or acting on his instructions.

The decision, which sent shock waves through Kenya’s legal community, was perceived by some as a misuse of judicial power, prompting Rosana to seek accountability from the Chief Justice.

Rosana claims that the decision was made in violation of procedural fairness, calling into question Koome’s ability to effectively lead the Judiciary.

In his petition, Rosana argues that Chief Justice Koome, as the head of the Supreme Court, bears primary responsibility for this decision and its subsequent implementation.

He says this action reflects a serious failure of foresight and competence on the part of the Chief Justice, which has led to a constitutional and judicial crisis.

The decision to ban Abdullahi has sparked intense debate and raised several legal questions.

On June 28, 2024, Rosana says High Court Judge Chacha Mwita ruled on the matter in a case filed by the Law Society of Kenya against the Supreme Court and others.

Judge Mwita’s ruling highlighted the fallout from the Supreme Court’s decision: Abdullahi’s firm was denied audience, and his associates faced similar restrictions.

“The ruling included the denial of an audience to his associates and the subsequent recusal of Supreme Court justices from cases involving Abdullahi’s firm,” says Ronasa.

Rosana’s petition criticises Koome for failing to anticipate the legal ramifications of the ban, including potential challenges under the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015.

The petition suggests that by not anticipating these consequences, the Chief Justice created a situation where the High Court had to step in to assess the legality of the Supreme Court’s actions, thus undermining the hierarchical order of the Judiciary.