By Perez Karisa,June 23,2006
Robert Alai has accused leaders of the Law Society of Kenya of selective activism and political bias, remarks that have ignited fresh debate over the role of legal professionals in responding to alleged human rights violations under successive Kenyan administrations.
Speaking on June 26, 2026, the Kileleshwa Member of County Assembly claimed that prominent legal advocates, including former LSK President Faith Odhiambo, did not mobilize legal support for opposition figures who were allegedly subjected to kidnappings, detention and solitary confinement during the administrations of Mwai Kibaki and Uhuru Kenyatta.
Alai argued that the current wave of legal activism and public criticism is disproportionately directed at the administration of William Ruto, contending that governance and human rights challenges that have existed across different administrations are now being unfairly attributed solely to the current government.
The MCA further alleged that sections of civil society and the legal fraternity are being supported by influential political interests, which he described as “dynastic quarters,” with the intention of destabilizing President Ruto’s administration. However, he did not publicly provide evidence to substantiate the funding claim.
Alai’s remarks have drawn scrutiny from legal observers and members of the public, who have pointed to a key chronological inconsistency in his comparison involving Faith Odhiambo. Analysts note that during the early years of the Kibaki administration, particularly in the mid-2000s, Odhiambo was still pursuing her legal studies and had neither qualified nor been admitted to the Bar as a practising advocate, making it impossible for her to have participated in legal representation during that period.
Supporters of the Law Society of Kenya have also defended the organization’s recent actions, arguing that its interventions during demonstrations—including visiting police stations to monitor arrests, filing emergency habeas corpus applications and providing legal representation to detained protesters—are part of its constitutional mandate to uphold the rule of law and protect fundamental rights, rather than evidence of political partisanship.
The exchange has added to an ongoing national conversation about the independence of professional bodies, the consistency of civil society advocacy across different political administrations and the responsibility of legal institutions to respond to alleged violations of constitutional rights irrespective of the government in power.
