The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has announced a nationwide court boycott, calling on advocates across the country to temporarily suspend court appearances in protest against what it describes as persistent challenges affecting the administration of justice. The move, which takes effect immediately, is aimed at pushing for institutional reforms and addressing concerns that lawyers say are undermining the legal profession and the justice system.
In directions issued by the LSK Council on July 17, 2026, the society described the boycott as a lawful and legitimate form of collective action. While lawyers will refrain from participating in most court proceedings, the society emphasized that it remains committed to protecting access to justice and ensuring that the rights of litigants are not unfairly affected during the protest.
The boycott will take two forms. The first is a one-day nationwide court boycott scheduled for Wednesday, July 22, 2026. The second is an indefinite targeted boycott of specific courts and judicial officers. According to the LSK, advocates will not appear before judges or judicial officers who are currently protected by court orders that block investigations or disciplinary processes being conducted by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) or the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC).
Under the guidelines, lawyers have been instructed to stay away from court hearings and applications during the boycott period. However, limited appearances will still be allowed in matters involving mentions, extensions of interim orders, and the fixing of fresh hearing dates. Advocates have also been advised to continue filing legal documents to ensure compliance with statutory deadlines and avoid prejudicing their clients.
The Law Society argues that the targeted boycott is intended to promote judicial accountability and strengthen constitutional oversight mechanisms. It wants judges facing complaints or investigations to allow those processes to proceed without interference. The society further says advocates should request the transfer, adjournment, or reassignment of cases if they are scheduled before judicial officers covered by the boycott.
One of the most significant aspects of the directive is its extension to the Supreme Court of Kenya. The LSK stated that all hearings and applications before the Supreme Court will be boycotted, except for registry services. The society justified this decision by claiming that several Supreme Court judges remain in office due to court orders that have prevented the Judicial Service Commission from handling complaints against them.
The move has sparked widespread debate within legal and governance circles. Supporters view the boycott as a strong defense of the rule of law and judicial accountability, while critics fear it could disrupt court operations and delay justice for many Kenyans. Nevertheless, the LSK insists that the action is necessary to protect the integrity of the judiciary and restore public confidence in legal institutions.
The announcement has also attracted attention beyond Kenya’s borders. Legal observers have noted similarities with recent actions by lawyers’ associations in other East African countries. The Uganda Law Society, in reacting to the development, said the Kenyan action reflects a growing regional trend where bar associations are increasingly resorting to collective action to defend the rule of law, judicial independence, and the rights of legal practitioners.
As the boycott date approaches, all eyes will be on Kenya’s judiciary, legal profession, and government institutions to see whether dialogue can resolve the issues raised by lawyers or whether the standoff will escalate into a prolonged confrontation over accountability, governance, and the future of justice in the country.
