The Supreme Court on Thursday barred Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi from appearing before it.
It also extended the ban to his law firm and any lawyer holding his brief.
The Court's bench said the Senior Counsel has "relentlessly and unabashedly... scandalized and ridiculed" it.
The bench includes Chief Justice Martha Koome, her deputy Philomena Mwilu, and judges Smokin Wanjala, Mohamed Ibrahim, Njoki Ndung'u, Isaac Lenaola and William Ouko.
The judges said the lawyer has relentlessly and unabashedly conducted a campaign in broadcast, print and social media platforms aimed at scandalising, ridiculing and outrightly denigrating the court.
"It is untenable that you would seek justice in the very institution and before the very Judges, whose reputation and integrity you never tire of assaulting," it added.
So how exactly can the Court ban a lawyer from appearing before it?
Reacting to the ban, Ahmednasir in a statement on his X official platform termed the ban against him and his law firm, at large, as “a badge of honour.”
Ahmednasir claimed this was the second time in his career that the courts had refused him an audience for speaking his mind
"Second time in my 30 years of law career that the courts refused me audience for calling for the removal of some judges from the courts," he claimed.
Basis of banning lawyers from appearing before the Supreme Court
Contempt of court
Legal Information Institute defines contempt court as the disobedience of an order of a court, or a conduct tending to obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of justice.
High Court Advocate Shadrack Wambui said this can qualify, in the sense that a lawyer can be given certain sanctions.
He, however, added that the sanctions are strictly guided by law.
Professional misconduct
A lawyer may be banned from appearing before the Supreme Court if his or her behaviour is considered unethical or if he is violating legal ethics.
Breach of confidentiality
Breaching the client-attorney privilege may lead to one's restriction to appear before the Apex court and other professional consequences.
The privilege can be broken if a lawyer discloses confidential client information unauthorised or without being compelled by the law.
Conflict of interest
Failing to disclose or manage one's conflicts of interest appropriately can lead to several professional sanctions, and if the actions compromise the integrity of the profession, a lawyer can be barred from appearing before the court.
Other basis are criminal conviction, incompetency and abuse of the legal process.
The constitution does not explicitly provide any specifics on sanctions of penalties for lawyers.
Lawyers and legal professionals are regulated by the Advocates Act.
Can the decision against Ahmednasir be challenged?
Wambui said the decision of the bench to bar Ahmednasir can be challenged at the High Court.
He cited a declaration by Chief Justice Martha Koome during the 2022 Presidential election petitions, where lawyers and litigants were gagged from discussing the proceedings.
Then, Lawyer Omwanza Ombati moved to the High Court terming the directive as unconstitutional and meant to curtail people's freedom of expression.
The court quashed the Supreme Court Presidential Election Petition Rules 2022 after declaring them unconstitutional for lack of public participation.
"A declaration be and is hereby issued, that, the Supreme Court (Presidential Election Petition) (Amendment) Rules, 2022 are not a statutory instrument within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments Act," the court ruled.
Wambui said the High Court has the first opportunity where matters done in the name of the law can be challenged.
This is under Article 165 of the 2010 Constitution.
He described the declaration barring Ahmednasir as an infringement of the people's rights.
"That declaration in itself takes away the right of the persons/ individuals to be represented by their lawyers," he said.
Article 50 (2)(g) states that "Every accused person has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right to choose, and be represented by an advocate, and to be informed of this right promptly".
Stating that the sanction is not anchored in the law, the High Court Advocate further wondered why the directive on Ahmednasir has to apply to his employees or rather the entire law firm.
He went on to term the Supreme Court's statement as "unreasonable, reckless, unconstitutional and unfair".
He apprehensively added that the court had become a law unto itself and resorted to disrespecting and pitting on the Constitution.
"I am hoping that the Senior Counsel is going to approach the High Court because this also affects the members of the Law Society of Kenya so the directive can be declared as unconstitutional and illegal," Wambui said.
He said the apex court should accept criticism and be accountable to the people.
"The court needs to be criticised. You know, public bodies need to be accountable to the people," Wambui said.