The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has urged the High Court to dismiss an application filed by the Presidential Panel of Experts tasked with overseeing the compensation of victims of demonstrations and public protests, arguing that the appeal lacks merit and is prematurely before the court.
The 14-member panel, appointed by President William Ruto, had filed an urgent application seeking to lift an order issued on September 8, 2025, which temporarily barred it from undertaking its mandate. The panel argued that the suspension undermines public interest by halting a process meant to deliver justice, accountability, and redress to victims affected by protest-related violence.
However, the LSK, through its legal team, dismissed the appeal as baseless and procedurally defective, maintaining that the applicants had failed to meet the legal threshold for stay orders under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
“The application before this Court is one for dismissal, as the appellants have failed to set out a case warranting the issuance of the orders sought,” LSK submitted.
Faith Odhiambo Resigns Amid Pressure
The case took a fresh twist after the panel’s vice chairperson, Ms. Faith Odhiambo, resigned from her position, citing sustained pressure surrounding the controversy. Odhiambo, who also serves as LSK President, had faced scrutiny over her dual involvement in the matter, prompting calls for her to step aside to preserve institutional independence.
Her resignation comes amid growing public debate on potential conflicts of interest and the legality of the panel’s establishment, following multiple petitions challenging its legitimacy.
LSK: Application Premature and Unsubstantiated
In its detailed response filed in court, the LSK argued that the panel had failed to demonstrate any irreparable loss that would result from the court’s earlier orders. The lawyers’ body further noted that the appeal was prematurely filed, as the High Court had not yet issued a substantive decision in the main petition.
“A perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal dated September 13, 2025, discloses that the committee has relied on unproven allegations as grounds of appeal, clearly illustrating their intent to have this Court delve into matters yet to be determined by the High Court,” the LSK submission read in part.
The society emphasized that the grounds of appeal are “ex facie unarguable,” adding that the panel was attempting to escalate a matter that remains within the jurisdiction of the lower court.
Dispute Over Alleged Judicial Conflict
The appeal also raised questions about judicial integrity, with the panel claiming that one of the petitioners, Dr. Magare Gikenyi, is related to petitioner Levi Munyeri, who had filed the original case challenging the panel’s legality.
The panel argued that this relationship was not disclosed to Justice Magare, creating a potential conflict of interest that should be addressed by the appellate court.
However, the LSK countered that such allegations are irrelevant to the core issue, asserting that the panel’s arguments were designed to distract from the substantive legal questions about the constitutionality of its operations.
Background of the Dispute
The contested Presidential Panel on Protest Victims Compensation was constituted by President Ruto earlier this year to evaluate claims and facilitate financial redress for individuals affected by violence during anti-government demonstrations.
However, the panel’s formation immediately attracted legal challenges, with petitioners — including Levi Munyeri and Dr. Magare Gikenyi — arguing that its creation was unconstitutional and politically influenced, thereby undermining its neutrality and transparency.
On September 8, 2025, the High Court issued conservatory orders suspending the panel’s operations pending the hearing of the main petition. The latest appeal by the panel seeks to overturn those orders.
Next Steps
The case is now pending before the Court of Appeal, where judges will decide whether the panel’s application meets the threshold for stay orders and whether the appeal itself is properly before the court.
Meanwhile, the main petition challenging the panel’s constitutionality continues before the High Court, with several civil society groups and human rights bodies expressing interest in joining as amicus curiae (friends of the court).
Legal analysts note that the outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the independence of public commissions and the legal boundaries of presidential powers in establishing special taskforces.