LSK President Faith Odhiambo Criticizes Court Ruling on Military Deployment

The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Faith Odhiambo has voiced her concerns regarding Thursday’s court ruling that approved the deployment of military forces in response to recent protests against the Finance Bill 2024. Odhiambo described the measure as “hasty and irrational,” arguing that it was enacted without proper consideration by the relevant state organs, security council, or parliament, as mandated by the Constitution.

In her statement, Odhiambo remarked, “The measure was taken in haste and irrationally in response to the tension caused by the recent wave of protests against the enactment of the Finance Bill 2024. There is no evidence of due consideration by the state organs, security council, or parliament prior to gazettement as contemplated by the Constitution.”

The ruling judge concurred with LSK’s arguments, noting that the deployment failed to meet the stringent requirements of Article 241 and the relevant provisions of the Kenya Defense Forces Act. The judge pointed out that the gazette notice was unclear regarding the scope, terms, conduct, and timeframe of the deployment. Despite these shortcomings, the court acknowledged the necessity of the deployment due to the police’s inability to manage the protests on Tuesday.

“The Constitution of Kenya 2010 provides an elaborate threshold for what constitutes an emergency that necessitates the deployment of the military,” Odhiambo said. She highlighted the judge’s concern that such deployment could create a rift between citizens and the military, who are meant to protect them. To address this issue, the court ordered the Defence Cabinet Secretary to issue a new gazette notice within two days, detailing the terms, scope, areas, and duration of the deployment to ensure public transparency.

While the LSK respects the court’s ruling, Odhiambo expressed strong disagreement. She emphasized that Article 241(3) permits military deployment in cases of instability, unrest, and emergencies but cautioned against setting a dangerous precedent by lowering the threshold for such actions. “The present action by the state is both procedurally unsound, not in conformity with Article 241, and is outright disproportionate,” Odhiambo stated.

She further criticized the government’s approach, stating, “The drastic measure of inviting military intervention in a controversy that is primarily political should not be taken lightly.

Our defense forces are highly respected for their independence, professionalism, impartiality, and respect for civilian rule. We should not taint them by liberally interpreting the limited scope of Article 241.”

Odhiambo also noted that the violence during the protests was largely a reaction to excessive police force and arbitrary actions. While condemning the disruption of public and private property, she argued that there is no evidence suggesting the police cannot manage the situation within the legal framework.

The LSK ‘s position underscores the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions and ensuring that state actions remain within the bounds of the law, particularly in sensitive matters involving military deployment and civilian safety.