LSK challenges admission of 6 South Sudanese, Chinese lawyers to Kenyan Bar
The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has objected to the admission of six lawyers to the Kenyan Roll of Advocates, arguing that their enrolment earlier this year was done in violation of the law.
In a letter addressed to the Chief Justice, the society raised concerns over the admission of the six individuals, nationals of South Sudan and the People’s Republic of China, maintaining that they do not meet the statutory requirements for entry into the Kenyan Bar.
LSK says that under the pre 2012 framework, eligibility for admission to the Kenyan Roll of Advocates is limited to Kenyan citizens, advocates from the High Court of Uganda or Tanzania, and certain advocates qualified in Commonwealth jurisdictions, subject to statutory conditions.
The society points out that neither South Sudan nor the People’s Republic of China has reciprocal arrangements with Kenya permitting cross-admission of advocates. Further, neither country falls within the Commonwealth category contemplated under the Act.
The lawyers’ body says that efforts to amend the law to accommodate advocates from Rwanda and Burundi have so far stalled.
“The Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2021 (National Assembly Bill No. 43 of 2021) lapsed with the 12th Parliament. A subsequent Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2023 remains pending, despite National Assembly Public Petition No. 20 of 2021 by George Nienga Mwaniki and 12 other Kenyan lawyers admitted in Rwanda and Burundi who sought reciprocal admission in Kenya,” reads the letter.
The LSK argues that until Parliament lawfully amends the Advocates Act in compliance with constitutional requirements, the existing legal position is binding on all institutions involved in legal education and admission.
Accordingly, the society maintains that the six applicants are ineligible for admission to the Kenyan Roll of Advocates and has called for appropriate action to ensure compliance with the law.
“The society further expresses grave concerns that the Kenya School of Law continues to present manifestly ineligible candidates for admission in disregard of statutory requirements and creating false legitimate expectations,” they say.
