The prominent lawyer said the court’s decision did not address what he considers deeper issues within the judiciary and insisted he would only return if reforms are undertaken and past wrongs acknowledged.
The Supreme Court lifted the restrictions on Friday, January 23, citing the passage of time, assurances of restraint, and the need to normalize relations between the bench and the bar.
The Supreme Court lifted the restrictions on Friday, January 23, citing the passage of time, assurances of restraint, and the need to normalize relations between the bench and the bar.
The ban had been imposed on January 23, 2024, after the court accused the outspoken lawyer of making statements that allegedly undermined its authority and dignity.
Court Says Time for Reflection Had Passed
During Friday’s proceedings—held in a separate matter involving Nguruman Limited and the Attorney General—senior lawyers Paul Muite and Fred Ngatia, appearing for Abdullahi, persuaded the bench to drop the ban.
They argued that the two-year period away from the apex court had given Abdullahi enough time to reflect on his conduct and future engagement with the judiciary.
Representatives from the Attorney General’s office also advised the court to issue guidance on the matter, acknowledging the controversy that the sanction had generated.
Representatives from the Attorney General’s office also advised the court to issue guidance on the matter, acknowledging the controversy that the sanction had generated.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court said it acknowledged the seriousness of the statements that led to the ban, but stressed that reconciliation and restoration of professional relations were in the interest of the justice system.
However, the bench stopped short of vacating the original 2024 directive, noting that it had arisen from separate proceedings which had already concluded.
Ahmednasir: Decision ‘Does Not Go Far Enough’
Soon after the ruling, Abdullahi released a detailed statement rejecting the court’s gesture. The former Law Society of Kenya president described his dispute with the Supreme Court as “principled, ideological and doctrinal,” adding that merely lifting the ban could not resolve the wider concerns he has raised over the judiciary’s integrity.
According to the Senior Counsel, the ban had been imposed “unfairly and without justifiable cause,” and he said he would not return unless the court openly admitted its mistakes, addressed his grievances and embarked on structural reforms.
“Today, the Supreme Court lifted the order. But I have decided not to practice unless the court admits its wrong, addresses my grievances, and restores the integrity of the institution,” he said.
Abdullahi further accused sections of the judiciary of engaging in practices he referred to as “JurisPESA,” alleging that corruption and patronage have weakened confidence in the court system.
However, the bench stopped short of vacating the original 2024 directive, noting that it had arisen from separate proceedings which had already concluded.
Ahmednasir: Decision ‘Does Not Go Far Enough’
Soon after the ruling, Abdullahi released a detailed statement rejecting the court’s gesture. The former Law Society of Kenya president described his dispute with the Supreme Court as “principled, ideological and doctrinal,” adding that merely lifting the ban could not resolve the wider concerns he has raised over the judiciary’s integrity.
According to the Senior Counsel, the ban had been imposed “unfairly and without justifiable cause,” and he said he would not return unless the court openly admitted its mistakes, addressed his grievances and embarked on structural reforms.
“Today, the Supreme Court lifted the order. But I have decided not to practice unless the court admits its wrong, addresses my grievances, and restores the integrity of the institution,” he said.
Abdullahi further accused sections of the judiciary of engaging in practices he referred to as “JurisPESA,” alleging that corruption and patronage have weakened confidence in the court system.
He warned that resuming practice would be seen as legitimizing a culture he has spent years criticizing.
Offers to Support CJ Koome if Reforms Begin
Despite his refusal to return, the lawyer signaled willingness to help the judiciary if it commits to reforms. Addressing Chief Justice Martha Koome directly, Abdullahi said his experience as former LSK chairman and former member of the Judicial Service Commission placed him in a good position to help improve the system.
“Madam CJ mimi niko ready. Are you ready?” he concluded in his statement.
Background to the Ban
The 2024 ban followed a series of social media posts in which Abdullahi sharply criticized the Supreme Court over its conduct, reasoning and perceived impartiality in various decisions.
Offers to Support CJ Koome if Reforms Begin
Despite his refusal to return, the lawyer signaled willingness to help the judiciary if it commits to reforms. Addressing Chief Justice Martha Koome directly, Abdullahi said his experience as former LSK chairman and former member of the Judicial Service Commission placed him in a good position to help improve the system.
“Madam CJ mimi niko ready. Are you ready?” he concluded in his statement.
Background to the Ban
The 2024 ban followed a series of social media posts in which Abdullahi sharply criticized the Supreme Court over its conduct, reasoning and perceived impartiality in various decisions.
The court considered the remarks “distasteful,” arguing that they crossed the boundary of permissible legal commentary.