The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has ordered a professional misconduct review of Mukurweini MP John Kaguchia and Homa Bay Town MP Peter Kaluma over remarks allegedly linked to incitement.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, August 19, LSK President Charles Kanjama, SC, said the Society was concerned about remarks attributed to the two legislators, who are also advocates, which have been widely circulated and reported as inflammatory. LSK stressed that political office does not suspend professional obligations, noting that freedom of political expression does not extend to incitement to violence or hatred.
The Society said it would independently pursue any professional disciplinary action against the two advocates, while criminal investigations and prosecution remain the responsibility of the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the courts.
“Political office does not suspend professional obligations,” LSK said.
Additionally, the society has directed its Practice Standards and Ethics Committee, through its Ethics and Disciplinary Liaison Sub-Committee, to review publicly available material on the remarks within 14 days. The committee will establish whether the statements disclose a case of professional misconduct under Section 60(1) of the Advocates Act, which covers “disgraceful or dishonourable conduct incompatible with the status of an Advocate.”
If a prima facie case is established, the committee will be required to lodge or facilitate formal complaints against MPs Kaguchia and Kaluma before the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal and pursue the matters to their conclusion. The committee is also required to report progress to the LSK Council within 30 days, with any attempt to interfere with or delay the process to be reported immediately.
LSK warned its members against making “inciteful, threatening or divisive utterances,” particularly during the sensitive electoral period.
The Society said it would not be “a passive bystander while its own members inflame the very public it is sworn to protect” and could pursue severe disciplinary sanctions where misconduct is established. These include suspension from legal practice and striking an advocate off the Roll of Advocates, subject to evidence and due process.
LSK maintained that its disciplinary process would remain politically neutral, saying it “will not shield an advocate because of political affiliation, nor condemn one because of it.”
It said the same professional standards would apply to Kaguchia and Kaluma “without exception and without delay.”
