A sharp contest has emerged within the legal fraternity following Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Faith Odhiambo’s acceptance of an appointment by President William Ruto to serve as co-chair of a newly created Panel of Experts tasked with handling compensation for victims of protests.
On Friday, September 5, advocate Levi Munyeri issued a hard-hitting statement, coupled with a formal letter addressed directly to Odhiambo, demanding that she relinquish her role as head of the LSK.
He warned that if she failed to step down, he would immediately lodge a petition for her removal, arguing that her decision represented a violation of both constitutional provisions and the Law Society of Kenya Act.
Munyeri contended that Odhiambo’s participation in the panel was fundamentally unlawful because the mandate had already been assigned by the Constitution to the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR).
He observed that Article 59 empowers the KNCHR to receive and investigate complaints on abuses of human rights and to pursue appropriate redress for victims.
By accepting to serve in a body that effectively mirrors this constitutional function, Odhiambo, he argued, had undermined the very legal framework she is sworn to defend.
The advocate strengthened his argument by pointing to ongoing constitutional petitions in the High Court.
He cited Petition No. HCCHRPET/E544/2025, filed by activist lawyer Lempaa Suyianka, which challenges the legality of the protest victims’ panel.
He also referenced another matter, HCCHRPET/E275/2025, Eliud Matindi v. State Law Office and others, that contests the appointment of Professor Makau Mutua as Advisor to the President on Constitutional Affairs.
Mutua, who chairs the panel in which Odhiambo now serves as vice chair, is, therefore, in Munyeri’s view, holding office under a cloud of illegality.
Munyeri’s reproach also drew from Odhiambo’s own prior conduct.
In July 2024, she had declined another appointment by President Ruto to a taskforce mandated to audit Kenya’s public debt, stating at the time that the role conflicted with the exclusive powers of the Auditor General.
He questions why Odhiambo had, in this instance, chosen to disregard a similar constitutional boundary, insisting that the authority to handle matters of compensation for victims of state violence lay solely with the KNCHR.
In his letter, Munyeri has pressed the point that Odhiambo’s dual service, both as President of the LSK and as an appointee in Ruto’s panel, had placed her in an untenable conflict of interest.
He maintained that her acceptance compromised the LSK’s ability to operate as an independent guardian of the rule of law, since the Society must remain free from executive influence to discharge its statutory responsibilities under Section 4 of the LSK Act.
For him, the matter was not one of personal preference but of constitutional fidelity.
“By purporting to serve as the LSK President and President Ruto’s appointee, you have compromised the competencies of the LSK to perform its functions,” he declared in his communication.
He has vowed to initiate all available legal measures to prevent what he described as an unfolding illegality.
Odhiambo, on her part, has defended her decision vigorously.
Speaking after her swearing-in on September 4, she acknowledged that her choice was controversial, admitting it was “a bold but unpopular step.”
She rejected claims that she had betrayed the cause of justice, asserting that her overriding priority remained the welfare of the victims of protests, many of whom suffered grave injuries or lost their lives.
Odhiambo insisted that she would remain transparent with the public throughout the panel’s work, promising regular updates and accountability.
Her stance has left the legal profession deeply divided.
While a segment of lawyers views her move as a betrayal of constitutional fidelity, others argue that her presence on the panel could provide victims with a stronger voice and greater legal protection.
What is beyond doubt is that the dispute has opened a new chapter in the ongoing debate over the independence of the LSK, its relationship with the executive, and the broader question of how the state ought to respond to protest-related tragedies.
Whether Odhiambo can weather this storm remains uncertain, as her leadership now stands at a precarious crossroads between principle and political entanglement.
A growing tide of public sentiment casts her less as a defender of justice and more as a collaborator with an administration many hold responsible for the very suffering she has pledged to address.
The perception that she has crossed from principled independence into executive accommodation has begun to erode the moral authority she once wielded with confidence.
For many in the legal profession, her decision is viewed as a rupture with the traditions of vigilance and autonomy that have long defined the Law Society’s identity.
