I laud the Supreme Court for issuing directives regarding the expected code of conduct by lawyers and litigants who continue to prosecute presidential election petitions in the court of public opinion.
Advocates are under a legal obligation to discharge their duties in the utmost respect of the law to advance access to justice as a public good. I strongly agree with the Chief Justice’s directives that bar advocates from second-guessing possible outcomes of the court because doing so deprives the bench of its freedom to operate in an environment that is independent of any influence. It is proper to delve into the merits and demerits of a matter once the court has dispensed with the case.
Lawyers and advocates across the world are specialised professionals who are expected to strive to advance respect for the rule of law. It is not in doubt that legal practitioners are highly regarded as informed people who play a central role in advancing the course of justice. In discharging their duties, they are called to uphold high standards of professionalism.
For the second time, Chief Justice Martha Koome has put lawyers on notice of the need to restrain themselves from commenting on a matter that is before the courts. The Supreme Court has published various directions touching on the presidential election petitions.
It should go on record that the supreme court of Kenya has the original jurisdiction and mandate to hear and determine presidential election petitions within the stipulated timelines. So important is the role of the supreme court in handling such a sensitive matter that affects the assumption of the office of the president that it has jolted the apex court to give proper guidance ahead of the August elections. This directive is well-intentioned to bolster public confidence when the court is adjudicating on any matter.
It is contemptuous to the court to comment on a matter pending before it. Secondly, adverse comments can erode judicial confidence and affect judicial officers from discharging their mandate in an independent atmosphere.
It is important to note that courts have over time suffered from low public ratings in the manner in which they conducted hearings under the old constitution. In my considered view, we should not roll back the gains made by the courts under the progressive 2010 Constitution. Notably, the Constitution grants citizens the right of expression but this right should not be misused by legal practitioners to the extent of watering down the process of dispensing justice.
The public has high regard for the legal profession just like they do for other professions. It is not in doubt that professions have specific entry requirements that must be met before one gains admission. It is for this reason that all professions have a well-designed code of conduct to regulate the behaviour of a particular profession.
If lawyers fail to adhere to and advance the principles of justice and fairness in their professional conduct, the law will be undermined and public confidence in court will drastically take a downturn.
I fully agree with the directives given by Koome requiring lawyers to uphold high standards of professional ethics. The era of fake news and misuse of social media platforms should not be misused by those who have a higher duty to uphold the law.
Nakhurenya Eric is a public policy and legal consultant
