Lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi’s Supreme Court Ban Lifted

The Supreme Court has lifted a restriction that had barred Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi from appearing before it, allowing him to resume practice at the country’s apex court after a two-year sanction. In a ruling delivered on January 23, 2026, Chief Justice Martha Koome, Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, and Justice Smokin Wanjala ruled that Ahmednasir, his law firm, or any advocate holding his brief may now appear before the Supreme Court, including in the matter currently before it. “It is our determination that Senior Counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi, an employee of his law firm, any other person holding his brief, or acting pursuant to his instructions, may from the date of this ruling appear and practise before the Supreme Court of Kenya and specifically in respect of the proceedings herein,” the bench stated. The decision followed an oral application made by Senior Counsel Paul Muite and Senior Counsel Fred Ngatia, who appeared as lead counsel for advocates representing Nguruman Limited. In their application, the two senior lawyers urged the court to lift the sanction imposed on Ahmednasir in January 2024, submitting that the restriction had served its purpose and that sufficient time had elapsed since it was imposed. They told the court that, in their view, the period had allowed for reflection and a renewed appreciation of the relationship between the bench and the bar, which they described as one founded on mutual responsibility in upholding the authority of the law. The restriction was imposed in January 2024 after the Supreme Court recused itself from hearing matters in which Ahmednasir or his firm appeared, citing conduct that the court said undermined its authority and dignity. ADVERTISEMENT At the time, the court directed that Ahmednasir would have no audience before it, either personally or through advocates acting on his instructions. In further submissions, Muite and Ngatia told the bench that two calendar years had passed since the sanction was imposed and that the senior counsel had had adequate time to introspect. They also assured the court that Ahmednasir would, going forward, engage with court decisions within what they described as respectful and objective scholarly discourse. Ngatia submitted that the factors that informed the court’s earlier decision were now largely historical and cautioned against continued reliance on past circumstances. The Attorney General’s office, represented by counsel holding brief, left the matter to the court’s discretion, urging it to make an appropriate determination and provide guidance where necessary. In its ruling, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the issues that led to the initial sanction but noted that the passage of two years was a significant consideration. The judges said they were persuaded that the period had afforded Ahmednasir sufficient opportunity to reflect on his conduct and his relationship with the court and its processes. They further stated that they had no reason to doubt the assurances given by senior counsel that Ahmednasir would uphold the decorum and dignity of the judiciary. However, the court clarified that while Ahmednasir is now permitted to appear before the Supreme Court, the order issued in January 2024 could not be vacated. ADVERTISEMENT “The order issued on January 23, 2024, cannot be vacated in the present matter as it was made in separate proceedings which have since been concluded,” the bench held.