LSK maintains targeted court boycott against 15 judges

LSK President Charles Kanjama speaks to journalists in Kisumu on September 25 2026. [Rodgers Otiso]

The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has maintained its targeted court boycott against about 15 judges and judicial officers, directing its members to continue refraining from appearing before the affected judicial officers until further communication from the society.

LSK President Charles Kanjama said the targeted boycott, which was announced before the courts went on a one-and-a-half-month recess, remains in force now that the courts have resumed normal operations.

Speaking to journalists outside the Kisumu Law Courts on Friday, Kanjama said the directive applies to the judges and judicial officers previously identified by the society, as well as any additional judicial officers LSK may identify from time to time.

“The targeted court boycott remains in force. Members are therefore reminded to refrain from appearing before judges and judicial officers identified under the targeted court boycott until further communication by the society,” Kanjama said.

The boycott comes after LSK organised a one-day general court boycott to highlight the importance of judicial accountability and the fight against corruption in the judiciary.

Kanjama said following the one-day boycott, the society announced a targeted boycott against a number of judges and judicial officers who were in a list of cases that had gone to court seeking to obstruct processes of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) relating to accountability.

However, within a week of the targeted boycott being announced, the courts went on recess for one and a half months, meaning the boycott could not effectively continue during the period.

With the courts now back to normal duties, Kanjama said it was the responsibility of LSK to advise its members on the status of the targeted boycott.

The society referred members and the public to its statement on judicial accountability issued on July 17, its operational guidelines on how to deal with the boycott issued on July 20, and a notice dated July 22, 2026.

LSK also held a meeting with the JSC on July 31, 2026, involving members of the Senior Council Bar of LSK, where the two institutions agreed on a number of measures relating to judicial accountability.

Kanjama said the resolutions reached during the meeting remain in force, but raised concern over the pace at which they were being implemented.

Among the agreed measures was a framework on judicial performance reporting, complaints handling, pending petitions before the JSC, establishment and operation of integrity committees in every court station, disciplinary regulations and a framework clarifying the relationship between judicial independence and institutional accountability.

Kanjama said that in a letter dated September 23, LSK sought an update from the chairperson of the JSC on the implementation of the resolutions.

He said several issues remain outstanding, beginning with the joint committee between LSK and the JSC, which has been constituted but has not yet started meeting.

The agreed reporting on judicial performance, which was expected to be undertaken by mid-August or the end of August, has also not been completed at court-station level or for individual judges and judicial officers.

Kanjama said the electronic system for lodging complaints with the JSC and tracking them to ensure they do not get lost within the commission had also not been put in place.

He added that LSK had been expected to receive substantive feedback on the status of pending petitions before the JSC, but that feedback had not yet been provided.

Another outstanding matter is the court-station integrity committees.

Kanjama said LSK was supposed to receive a consolidated report containing the contact details of the head of every integrity committee to enable lawyers and members of the public to report cases of corruption for investigation. “This has not yet happened,” he said.

The society had also requested that draft regulations on judicial disciplinary processes be revised to address LSK's concerns that disciplinary proceedings should be handled quickly and should not become long-drawn-out processes.

Kanjama said the proposed revision had not yet been undertaken.

On the relationship between judicial independence and accountability, Kanjama said LSK remained committed to developing a framework to clarify the distinction between the decisional independence of judges and institutional accountability.

He said judges are independent when making decisions but maintained that there should be accountability where such decisions or conduct are linked to incompetence or corruption.

Kanjama said the LSK Council had directed and advised its members to continue observing the targeted court boycott. “Members shall refrain from appearing before the targeted judges and judicial officers identified by the society until further communication,” he said.

He said members would also be expected to comply with any operational guidance issued by the society concerning implementation of the targeted boycott.