Kanjama: My LSK will not go to bed with the government

Newly elected Law Society of Kenya President Charles Kanjama says an organisation is as good as its leader as he vows to defend the Constitution and keep the Society vibrant and promises that LSK will not go to be bed with the government ahead of elections next years.

What exactly is the mandate of the LSK?

The Law Society of Kenya has two main mandates. First, it is the lawyers’ society of Kenya. It is our professional body. It regulates the legal profession and champions the interests of advocates; almost like a trade union.

Second, under Section 4 of the Law Society of Kenya Act, it is also the society of law in Kenya. That is where the public interest dimension comes in: rule of law, constitutionalism, human rights, and access to justice. We are required to advise the courts, the government and the people of Kenya, and where necessary, to call out any arm of government that departs from constitutional principles.

LSK is often seen as confrontational: rushing to court, challenging government action. Is that central to its role?

The Constitution establishes several bodies under Chapter 15 to secure constitutionalism. LSK is not one of them. But the Constitution recognises the body representing lawyers as part of the Judicial Service Commission. Our core mandate is statutory, but it includes supporting constitutionalism and rule of law.

Because lawyers occupy influential positions across government: the Judiciary, Legislature, Executive and commissions, the Society’s voice carries weight.

We can mobilise our members and collaborate with civil society when there is imminent danger to human rights. That support role has become very important.

Does leadership shape how bold or reserved LSK becomes?

Like any institution, tone comes from the top. If leadership is inward-looking, the society may focus mainly on practice issues. If leadership is energetic and outward-looking, you will see greater engagement on national questions.

As we approach the 2027 elections, both lawyers and the public want an LSK that is active, independent and principled. Even lawyers who support the government expect their professional body to speak with integrity and independence.

In the last two years, LSK has appeared more robust in public interest litigation. Should we expect this trend to continue?

There has indeed been improvement, especially in public interest litigation. But we must guard against co-optation. LSK must never become an appendage of any political or economic interest.

At the same time, activism must be anchored in integrity and transparency. Public interest litigation can attract high stakes and pressure. Leadership must resist compromise and keep members and the public informed about what we are doing and why.

When controversial invitations arise, say, participation in a national process that divides opinion, do members have a say?

LSK has robust structures; general meetings, branches and committees. Members can file motions and debate issues vigorously. But while participation is essential, leadership must ultimately decide. You cannot have paralysis by analysis while the house is burning. If the Constitution is under threat, you act then consult further.

Should LSK’s law reform and legislative oversight role be institutionalised?

Definitely. When I was a young lawyer, I served in the Legislation and Law Reform Committee. We realized early that reviewing legislation was under-resourced. The 2014 Act expressly mandates LSK to review legislation and promote law reform.

We must invest more in that function by hiring researchers, producing annual rule of law reports and engage Parliament proactively. Instead of merely reacting when lines are crossed, we should anticipate risks such as boundary delimitation ahead of 2027, and raise early warnings.

Where has LSK done well recently, and which area do you think needs improvement?

It has done well in defending rule of law by speaking out against extrajudicial actions and supporting constitutional values during moments of national tension.

But we tend to be reactive. We need proactive strategies—structured collaboration with constitutional commissions, annual rule of law audits, and early engagement on emerging crises.

Internally, we must tackle integrity concerns. Corruption in registries, questionable procurement of legal services, and misconduct within the profession undermine public confidence. If legal services appear compromised, access to justice suffers.

Should government be allowed to hire private law firms?

Yes.

That issue is now before the courts after orders barring public entities from engaging private firms. What is your view?

The order was issued ex parte, meaning only one side was heard. It is being challenged.

Substantively, engaging private lawyers is not new. It has happened since independence and across professions. Article 227 of the Constitution allows public procurement of private services, provided it is fair, transparent and accountable.

However, procurement abuse exists. The Auditor General has flagged high legal fees in some counties. There may be instances of collusion. Those must be investigated case by case.

But you do not solve corruption by banning legitimate professional engagement altogether. That would be like burning down the house to kill a rat.

The solution is stronger oversight, transparent procurement and enforcement of professional discipline; not blanket prohibitions.

As LSK president, what legacy would you want to build?

An LSK that is independent, proactive and ethical. A society that protects practice space for its members while defending the Constitution for all Kenyans. One that embraces emerging fields—technology, climate law, alternative dispute resolution, and expands opportunities for young lawyers.

Most importantly, I want LSK to be the conscience of the nation. Not partisan. Not hostile. But principled. When the law is respected, we support. When it is threatened, we speak firmly and without fear.