A seismic tremor is rippling through Kenya's legal and political landscape. In a move that's both audacious and deeply significant, a Nairobi-based advocate has formally petitioned the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) to strike Interior Cabinet Secretary Kithure Kindiki and Transport Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen from the Roll of Advocates. This isn't just a legal maneuver; it's a direct challenge to the intersection of power, accountability, and professional ethics at the highest echelons of government.
The advocate behind this bold motion, Kepha Ojijo, argues that Kindiki and Murkomen, by virtue of their past and present roles in the Cabinet, particularly within the powerful security dockets, have presided over — or been complicit in — actions that constitute gross misconduct and flagrant violations of the Advocates' Code of Conduct. The crux of Ojijo's accusation centers on the alleged state violence unleashed during the nationwide Gen Z protests in 2024 and 2025. He claims that police operations during these demonstrations resulted in a tragic toll of deaths, injuries, abductions, and disappearances of young protesters.
"The respondents continue to identify as advocates while overseeing state-sanctioned brutality," the motion starkly asserts. This statement cuts to the core of the issue, suggesting a fundamental conflict of interest and a deceptive portrayal to the public. To hold the esteemed title of an advocate, a profession predicated on upholding justice and the rule of law, while simultaneously being accused of sanctioning or condoning its antithesis, raises profound questions about the integrity of the legal profession itself. Ojijo contends that this dual identity "misleads the public and demeans the integrity of the legal profession."
The petition goes further, accusing the two high-ranking officials of an alarming lack of responsibility or remorse. Instead, it alleges, they have been observed praising law enforcement conduct, even in the face of mounting evidence pointing to widespread human rights violations. This perceived detachment from accountability, especially from individuals who once championed legal principles, forms a critical part of the advocate's case.
Kepha Ojijo isn't merely lodging a complaint; he's pushing for decisive action. He has called for an urgent Special General Meeting of LSK members, where they would vote on the unprecedented step of striking Kindiki and Murkomen from the Roll of Advocates. This democratic approach within the LSK highlights the gravity of the accusations and the collective responsibility of the legal fraternity. As an alternative, should a Special General Meeting not be feasible or desired, Ojijo proposes that the matter be swiftly referred to the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal, a body specifically mandated to address professional misconduct within the legal profession.
The underlying sentiment driving this motion is a clear demarcation between politics and professional integrity. Ojijo's statement, "If the respondents wish to engage in politics, they should do so without wearing the hat of advocates," encapsulates this sentiment perfectly. It suggests that the demands of public office, particularly those involving security and enforcement, should not be allowed to overshadow the fundamental ethical obligations inherent in being an advocate.
This legal challenge doesn't occur in a vacuum. It emerges amidst a palpable surge of public anger and disillusionment regarding the state's handling of youth-led protests. Human rights groups, both local and international, have consistently accused the government of deploying excessive force against peaceful demonstrators and engaging in targeted actions that violate fundamental freedoms. The motion against Kindiki and Murkomen, therefore, resonates deeply with a public increasingly demanding accountability for perceived abuses of power. Should this motion gain traction and lead to formal disciplinary proceedings, it would mark a truly rare and significant moment in Kenya's legal history.
