High Court Removes LSK President Faith Odhiambo from Key Constitutional Petitions Over Victim Compensation Panel

The High Court in Kerugoya has ordered the removal of Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Faith Odhiambo as a respondent in two consolidated constitutional petitions. The petitions target the appointment and overall makeup of the Panel of Experts tasked with handling compensation for victims of demonstrations and public protests.

Justice Edward M. Muriithi delivered the decision on Tuesday, granting Odhiambo's application to be struck out from Petition Numbers E011 and E014 of 2025. This move comes after her voluntary exit from the panel, which the court deemed sufficient to nullify claims against her personally.

Odhiambo, a prominent legal figure and current head of the LSK, had faced scrutiny as the 10th respondent in Petition E011 and the 4th respondent in Petition E014. The core grievances in these suits revolved around the panel's formation, with specific accusations leveled at her involvement creating potential conflicts. Critics argued that her dual roles as LSK leader and panel member breached integrity standards outlined in Chapter Six of the Kenyan Constitution, alongside provisions in the Leadership and Integrity Act and the Conflict of Interest Act.

The panel in question was established to address reparations for individuals harmed during public unrest, a process that has drawn widespread attention amid ongoing debates over protest rights and government accountability. Odhiambo's appointment to this body had sparked concerns about impartiality, given the LSK's advocacy role in human rights and legal oversight.

In her bid for removal, Odhiambo invoked the Mutunga Rules, which govern civil procedure in constitutional matters. She emphasized that her resignation on October 6, 2025, effectively ended her association with the panel. This step was officially recognized by the government via Gazette Notice Number 7904, published on November 4, 2025, solidifying her non-involvement.

Not all parties welcomed her exit from the litigation. The second petitioner resisted the application, pointing to potential contempt of court issues tied to the panel's operations. They highlighted ongoing activities by the panel in defiance of existing conservatory orders, suggesting Odhiambo's prior participation implicated her in these matters.

Similarly, the third petitioner pushed back, asserting that Odhiambo's combined positions inherently violated constitutional mandates on leadership integrity. They contended that she could not neatly divide her actions between personal and professional capacities, leaving lingering questions about accountability.

Justice Muriithi carefully weighed these arguments before siding with Odhiambo. In his detailed judgment, he noted a lack of direct evidence connecting her to any contempt allegations. He pointed out that the supporting affidavit on this front had been filed by the panel's joint secretary, rather than Odhiambo herself. Furthermore, the judge clarified that any future contempt actions would appropriately target only those still serving on the panel post-resignation.

A pivotal aspect of the ruling addressed the broader implications for the case. The judge affirmed that the fundamental issues surrounding the panel's legitimacy and appointments could be thoroughly examined without Odhiambo's presence as a party. He stressed that the LSK itself continues as a named respondent, ensuring the society's perspective remains represented in the proceedings. This separation, he reasoned, avoids unnecessary personal entanglement while preserving the petition's focus.

With the application fully approved, Odhiambo is now officially excised from both petitions. The court mandated that all involved parties cover their respective legal costs, promoting a sense of equity in the resolution. The cases will now advance against the other respondents, potentially paving the way for deeper scrutiny of the panel's structure and operations.

This development underscores the fluid dynamics at play in Kenya's constitutional litigation landscape, where individual roles can shift rapidly amid public and legal pressures. As the petitions progress, they hold potential to influence how the government approaches victim compensation in protest-related incidents, a topic that resonates deeply in a nation still grappling with the aftermath of recent unrest.

Legal observers view the ruling as a pragmatic step, balancing procedural efficiency with substantive justice. It also highlights the judiciary's willingness to adapt to changing circumstances, ensuring that moot points do not bog down critical human rights discussions.

For now, Odhiambo can refocus on her duties at the LSK, free from the personal legal overhang of the panel controversy. Meanwhile, the remaining litigants gear up for what promises to be a rigorous examination of governance and accountability in public protest compensation mechanisms.