The Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association (KMJA) has urged the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) to reconsider its proposed nationwide and targeted boycott of court proceedings, warning that the move would primarily harm litigants and undermine access to justice.
In a statement released on Tuesday, KMJA said it had taken note of the LSK’s statements issued on July 17 and July 20, 2026, regarding judicial accountability, the administration of justice and the proposed boycott. While acknowledging the concerns raised by the lawyers’ body, the association said the Judiciary has already recognized challenges such as delays, registry inefficiencies, case management and judicial accountability and is actively implementing reforms to address them.
The association said that although the concerns raised by the LSK are legitimate, withdrawing from court proceedings would not punish the institution but would instead delay justice for ordinary Kenyans whose cases are pending before the courts.
KMJA also expressed concern over the targeted boycott of specific judicial officers, including members of the Supreme Court, noting that some of the judges named are currently involved in cases before courts of competent jurisdiction. It said directing advocates not to appear before judges who have exercised their constitutional right to seek legal redress risks being perceived as an attempt to influence ongoing judicial proceedings and is inconsistent with the constitutional principle of judicial independence.
On allegations of corruption and misconduct within the Judiciary, KMJA reiterated its zero-tolerance policy, saying all credible complaints should be investigated promptly and impartially. However, it urged the LSK to present specific, evidence-backed complaints through the Judicial Service Commission and the Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman instead of publicly naming judicial officers before due process is followed.
The association acknowledged that case backlog remains a major concern but said the problem stems from multiple factors and requires collaborative solutions. It highlighted ongoing reforms, including active case management, digitisation of court processes, automation of registries, expansion of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and continuous performance monitoring as measures aimed at improving efficiency.
Regarding the planned publication of individual judicial performance data, KMJA said it supports transparency and accountability but has requested that the release be delayed until the ongoing Case Weighting Study and digitisation of the Case Tracking System are completed to ensure the data is accurate, fair and comparable across all court stations.
As a way forward, KMJA proposed urgent structured dialogue between the Bench and the Bar through the National Council on the Administration of Justice, Court Users Committees or a dedicated Bar-Bench meeting to resolve the issues raised.
The association also appealed to advocates to continue representing their clients while discussions continue, emphasizing that the constitutional rights of litigants should not be compromised through actions that disrupt court proceedings.
KMJA reaffirmed its commitment to working with the LSK, the Judiciary, the Judicial Service Commission and other justice sector stakeholders to strengthen judicial independence, improve court efficiency and enhance public confidence in the administration of justice.
