High Court Dismisses Supreme Court’s Attempt to Stop Case on Ahmednasir’s Ban

The Milimani High Court in Nairobi has rejected the attempt by Supreme Court judges to halt the hearing of a case contesting a ban imposed on Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi.

Justice Chacha Mwita ruled against the bid, affirming that the court holds the authority to hear the case challenging the Supreme Court’s ban on Ahmednasir and his associates.

“The issues raised are under the jurisdiction of this court. The court has a duty to determine whether indeed rights and fundamental freedoms in the bill of rights have been violated or denied through the challenged action,” he said.

The Supreme Court judges had urged the court not to entertain the case filed by Ahmednasir, arguing that doing so would violate the court’s hierarchy.

Senior Counsel Ochieng Oduol, representing the Supreme Court judges, objected to the case, stating that once the Apex Court has made a decision and issued an order, it cannot be subjected to supervision by the High Court.

However, Justice Mwita’s ruling means the case will proceed to a full hearing. Oduol’s request to suspend the court’s decision for 30 days was also declined.

The Supreme Court banned Ahmednasir from appearing before it on January 18, 2024, citing that he had “relentlessly and unabashedly… scandalized and ridiculed” the court.

“In view of the foregoing, it is the decision of this Court, that henceforth and from the date of this communication, you shall have no audience before the Court, either by yourself, through an employee of your law firm, or any other person holding brief for you,” the statement read in part.

The court accused the lawyer of waging a campaign in broadcast, print, and social media, alleging that the court and its judges were involved in corruption, incompetence, and outright bribery.

“This, you have done with reckless abandon, paying scant regard to the reputations of those who tirelessly serve on the Court in accordance with their Oath of Office,” the court said.

The court highlighted that, despite his sustained and unsubstantiated attacks against the court and its judges, the lawyer continues to file cases before it without acknowledging the contradiction in his actions.