The Law Society: How many more will crawl out of the woodwork?

"The President of the Law Society will be required from time to time to defend the Constitution and the Public in accordance with the Law Society Act.Here our preferred candidate seeking for an injunction to stop payment of 1.4 billion Angloleasing money on behalf of the people of Kenya.The matter is pending in Court."

Good people, this screed is from one of our better-known candidates for the Law Society presidency. I will, for the moment, restrain myself mightily from enquiring too deeply into the troubling grammar and syntax. Instead, I shall occupy myself with examining the remarkable declaration that "The President of the Law Society will be required from time to time to defend the Constitution and the Public in accordance with the Law Society Act." (Gods of grammar, please forgive him.) And anyone that refers to themselves in the third person should be treated with great, great suspicion.

Let us get the pettifoggery out of the way: Act No. 21 of 2014 may be cited as the Law Society of Kenya Act, 2014, and not as the Law Society Act. You'd think a senior member of the Kenyan Bar, a former vice-chairman of the Society no less, would be mindful of the way statutes should be cited.

Now, to the substance of his assertion. Section 4 of the Law Society of Kenya Act, 2014, enumerates the objects and functions of the Law Society. Two are especially notable: (b) uphold the Constitution of Kenya and advance the rule of law and the administration of justice; and (d) protect and assist the members of the public in Kenya in matters relating to or ancillary or incidental to the law. So far as I can tell, the President of the Council of the Law Society is not some kind of Lone Wolf who will single-handedly "defend the Constitution and the Public" against enemies of the Constitution or the people.

Sadly, this is not the only candidate in the LSK elections with delusions of grandeur. One intends to amend the Law Society of Kenya Act, 2014, without further reference to Parliament, the only constitutional organ that makes law in Kenya. Take a gander at this:

 "My second agenda, if elected, will be to overhaul and improve the LSK management. To this end, I will work towards a clear decision making process and communication from the LSK secretariat. I am devoted to pushing for a clear remuneration guidelines within LSK which will in turn serve to foster transparency and accountability. I will also pursue an audit of LSK accounts and management decisions to ensure that they were and are in line with members expectations and LSK mandate. Finally, we will make LSK open to scrutiny by members in furtherance of its visions and goals."

 Again, I shall restrain myself with a mighty effort from enquiring at all into the troubling problems with both the grammar and the syntax in this declaration. Unless this lawyer has not been paying attention, the governance of the Law Society is set out in Part III and, to some extent, Part IV of the Act. That is neither here nor there, however. What should come as a surprise is that the Council of the Law Society does not have "clear remuneration guidelines" and that it is opaque and unaccountable. Why is it that this candidate is only raising this matter during this election juncture? While members' funds have been dealt with sans guidelines, in opaque and unaccountable ways, where has this soul been keeping himself? Why should we trust his goodwill today when he has made a pretty damn good show of keeping it hidden all along?

These two candidates are a symptom of the atrophying ideals of the Black Bar in Kenya. They are the tail end of a long queue that stretches back to the early 2000s. The Society is in trouble. These candidates are not the solution.