Why Faith Odhiambo's role in Ruto's compensation panel is facing legal heat

The Law Society of Kenya is not interested in a case filed to challenge its president, Faith Odhiambo’s appointment as a member of the 14-member panel of experts formed by President William Ruto to facilitate the compensation of protest victims.

During the hearing before Court of Appeal Judges Kathurima M’inoti, Abida Ali Aroni and Sankale Ole Kantai, the lawyer who is representing the panel, Dudley Ochiel, said the society was not served with the court papers but did not get involved in the case.

“The reason they did not serve a notice of address is that they were not interested in any of the cases at the High Court. They never entered an appearance in any of them,” said Ocheil.

Lawyer Levy Munyeri and Nelson Havi indicated that LSK’s President Faith Odhiambo was a party to the case.

“When I served as a president I would have attended the matters in person, I don’t know what is happening. Intriguingly, the president of the Law Society of Kenya is the appellant number two, which will give credence of what Dudley is saying. In my opinion we may go on bearing in mind the importance of the matter,” said Havi.

Justice Kantai on his end said that it was important for society to appear, while Justice M’inoti and Aroni said that they needed to hear from the horse’s mouth. The judges concluded that (LSK) had not been served.

In the case, the Makau Mutua-led compensation panel wants the court to allow them to continue working as the case is being heard.

Other members include Odhiambo as deputy and Amnesty International’s Irungu Houghton, former Solicitor General Kennedy Ogeto, Rev Kennedy Barasa, Linda Musumba, and Dr John Olukuru.

Others are Dr Duncan Ojwang', Naini Lankas, Dr Francis Muraya, Pius Metto, Juliet Chepkemei, Fatuma Abass and Raphael Anampiu.

Richard Barno is the technical lead, together with Duncan Okela, with Jerusah Mwaathime and Raphael Ng’etich serving as joint secretaries.

Through Mwaathime, the panel is seeking to have the Court of Appeal sitting in Nyeri lift orders issued by Justice Kizito Magare of the Kerugoya High Court.

He argues that the petitioner Levi Munyeri did not inform Justice Magare that one of the petitioners in the matter, Dr Magare Gikenyi, is related to him, putting the judge in a perplexing situation.

In their appeal, Mwaathime says that the petitioner, Munyeri, was doing forum shopping since there had been two cases that had been filed in Milimani Law Courts.

“The orders were irregularly obtained during recess in a matter that is sub judice, as two related petitions had already been filed before the High Court at Milimani,” he says.

He alleges that Munyeri did not reveal this to Justice Magare and ended up misleading him into issuing the orders.

“By suppressing the existence of the Milimani petitions, the Petitioner engaged in clear forum shopping by abandoning the Nairobi forum and seeking orders in Kerugoya during recess, contrary to the principles of fairness, candour, and good faith in judicial proceedings.”

In his affidavit, Mwaathime says that the orders issued by Justice Magare “would unjustly paralyze this unprecedented mandate, deny long-overdue justice to victims, and defeat the very purpose for which the Panel was constituted”.

He continued to say that the judge was misled to issue orders incapable of being issued since the panel’s mandate started when they were sworn into office on September 4, 2025.

“It is a settled principle that conservatory orders cannot reverse or invalidate actions that have already lawfully taken place.”

He further says that the orders offend a long-standing presumption that acts of government and public authorities are legal and regular.

Mwaathime added that the orders were issued without parties in the petition being notified and if not lifted will greatly prejudice them.

He added that it will undermine public interest in securing justice, accountability and redress of the victims of police brutality.

According to Mwaathime, the orders should be lifted pending the hearing and determination of the application and main petition.

He argues that no prejudice will be suffered by the petitioners but the panel and the victims of police brutality will suffer if not lifted.

In the petition, Munyeri had argued that President Ruto had bypassed Parliament, which has the authority to provide for and budget for compensation.

He added that it was not yet clear where the money to pay the victim would come from and how it would be accounted for.

He further argued that the team was usurping the powers given to the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR).

According to him, it is within KNCHR’s mandate to verify victims, authenticate data from State organs, and compensate people whose rights had been violated.

“Allowing the Executive to bypass or displace the Commission’s functions by creating temporary bodies would defeat the purpose of constitutional entrenchment, because it would permit erosion of the Commission’s independence, fragment institutional responsibility and risk arbitrary outcomes,” he said.

The case will be heard on October 7, 2025.