I salute also the inimitable PLO Lumumba, now Doctor, and his diametric twin, Gibson Kamau Kuria, also Doctor. I say diametric because whereas one is articulate, coherent and fairly flamboyant, the other is clumsy, distressed and often woolly in his delivery. On the other hand, I say twins, for they both are teachers of Law and have, at certain points in their careers, espoused both noble and less commendable causes.

I will be the first person to admit that if you are superficial and put much premium on appearances, it will be difficult indeed to take a liking for Dr Kuria, SC. Despite now adopting a clean-shaven, better-kempt appearance, Dr Kuria's physique and deportment do not lend themselves easily to sartorial splendour, foppish elegance and the athlete's grace. I am afraid to say he is not the regular dandy nor is he a clothes-horse of any note . On the contrary, Dr Lumumba, despite his decidedly summarised stature, is a showman of aplomb. His Maoist suits bestow a majesty and command that make him a compelling presence. His vocabulary, diction, elocution and authority in at least three languages render him a most persuasive, or at least hypnotising, orator. His choice of colourful, immodest, even bombastic turn of phrase, idiom and word more than make up for the aforesaid truncation of stature.

Dr. Kuria was a valiant fighter for human rights and democracy in the days when Mr. Moi preferred to have intellectuals, artists and lawyers squashed like bugs. He never wavered. He was true and faithful to the cause. In the NARC era, He stood up for the new regime even when it was unpopular. He was not the best-liked legal eagle in Kenya then. He became first portly, then rotund, and finally positively corpulent. By the time he shed his infamous tears at KICC, he was the ultimate caricature of an Establishment Conspirator. What remained constant was the vehemence of his conviction, the power of his resolve and the singlemindedness of his efforts. What I admire most about him are his legendary battles, waged on behalf of Samuel Macharia and Royal Media, against an intransigent Nyayo government. I also like that he is an unpretentious, self-effacing, regular, middle-aged man, totally unaffected by his fame, courteous and polite ( at least the few times I met him at the High Court library, where he voraciously devours learned tomes).

Dr Lumumba's finest moment is arguably during the life of CKRC, and his input to the Bomas draft will remain an everlasting credit. He went on to exploit his star-power and built the formidable celebrity profile which makes him a must-have on every radio and, especially, TV show, where any matter with the slightest legal bearing is canvassed. We are now familiar with his tautology, his disdain for summary, his proclivity for big words with heavy, multiple syllables, colourful turn of phrase, his well deployed metaphor and analogy. It is said, however, that in the days when university student leadership was the vanguard of the struggle against Nyayo tyranny, young PLO was very much an establishment poodle, rising to the top at the expense of comrades who fell by the wayside, and bolstering his academic prospects quite well indeed. I was not there, mind. That was then.

* * * * * *

The Law Society of Kenya in the Post-Referendum era is a very, very wounded animal. Whilst Kenyans have been quick to condemn the ease with which the Church jumped into bed with the political Establishment (where it was found in flagrante delicto, and where it has departed with guilty haste and a most disingenuous indignant bitterness), their attitude towards the degeneration and regression of LSK was one of resignation, disillusion and the hypnosis with which a spectacular tragedy commands the attention of horrified minds.

In the pre-Referendum period, when Kenya furiously negotiated the terms of a new constitutional dispensation, LSK quietly but irreversibly commenced its decline. The lawyers in CKRC turned out to be divided into myriad cliques aligned to various politico-ethnic formations. Consequently, their 'jurisprudence' bore little intellectual and philosophical merit, but was laden with tribal jingo and pedestrian logic. It was a show of opportunistic, cynical posturing in the name of projecting 'learned ' opinions.

Against this background, LSK began to manifest cracks in its body politic. They were mainly of two types. The first was the traditional mutual antipathy between the 'Nairobi" and the 'Upcountry' advocates. It was felt by the latter that the former had dominated LSK for so long, ridden roughshod and generally disregarded the fact that the upcountry lawyers were their intellectual and professional equals. This situation was not helped at all by that brilliant, forthright, blunt, dyed-in-the-wool-Nairobi advocate, Ahmednassir Abdullahi, SC, who was popularly elected chair and had undisguised disdain for the Nairobi/Upcountry dichotomy and acrimony. During his countrywide meet-the-people tours, he barely concealed his contempt for regional factional claims for autonomy and recognition. By the time of the infamous 'cotton wool' declaration in Kisumu in 2004, the Nairobi/Upcountry battle was joined, and there was no turning back.

Exit Ahmednassir, enter Ojienda. Tom Odhiambo Ojienda is a very tall, taciturn lawyer with a brisk and acerbic mind. He is also an unapologetic JJ: a votary of the fine things in life, given to impetuous shows of intellectual finesse and personal style. Like Abdullahi before him, he does not suffer fools gladly. Unlike Abdullahi, he practises law in the town of Nakuru, teaches Law at Moi University, Eldoret and so is nominally an upcountry lawyer. Before running for LSK chair, I had the dimmest view of Ojienda's political acumen. However, the virtuosity with which he edged the Upcountry/Nairobi conflict to the forefront of his election campaign agenda left me agog with awe. Having worked the Math, he cast his lot with the upcountry lawyer, and rallied his Luo, Luhya and Kisii colleagues in Nairobi around his cause to hand his opponent a sound licking in the elections. He served two full terms, swiftly got a foothold in the EALS, eventually gaining the helm, and thereafter did the same with PALU.

During Ojienda's tenure at LSK, the Nairobi/upcountry saga took an ethnic bent. Indeed, Nairobi became synonymous with GEMA and upcountry, well, the rest of Kenya. And things became ugly. Nairobi threatened to register a parallel Society. Upcountry scoffed and began to entrench itself into LSK leadership. Thus LSK council took on people from Eastern, Coast, Rift Valley and Nyanza with the effect that in due course, only a few advocates represented Nairobi.

We all know what happened at the Referendum. The LSK Council leaned Orange, and all hell immediately broke loose. Small regional coteries sprang up to espouse decidedly partisan ethno-political stands. Ultimately, Coast, North Rift and Western favoured the Orange. Meru, Mt. Kenya and other town-based fraternities in Central Province chose the Banana. The LSK's fall from grace was nearly complete. It took the Eric Omogeni/ Kamotho Waiganjo contest, however, to complete the decline. In that contest, Omogeni won because of two factors. One, he got Ojienda's nod, and secondly, Kamotho is a Kikuyu. If Omogeni had a plan, a vision, a manifesto, an issue-based platform for his candidature, no one ever got close to considering it -- if they had so much as ever seen it in the first place. On the other hand, Waiganjo presented a manifesto, emailed extensively and vigorously lobbied online. In vain. He was a Kikuyu, and Mt Kenya Mafia were not well liked, and Omogeni was not a Kikuyu, and that was that.

Omogeni in now on his second term. His re-election was a debacle.

I leave it to you, ladies and gentlemen, to imagine the parochialism, the visceral, atavistic tribal instincts and sentiments driving LSK Annual General Meetings. I leave you to visualise the number of motions of great merit that have been lost on account of the mover's ethnicity or location of practice. I ask you to see the barely concealed conspiracies to allow certain partisans to speak, and completely ignore the existence of others. Please see in your mind's eye hands raised, lawyers frantically genuflecting and nearly levitating with frustration and desperation, as the Chair seeks out a calm, composed, discreet one whose name he just happens to know. Please visualise the theatrical, ridiculous, humiliating command of an acclamation vote. Understand how even the personable and impressive Professor Githu Muigai lost a motion despite the fact that the majority of voting attendees were his students and admirers.

Even so, the 2009 AGM was the most atrocious farce in the LSK repertoire. Advocates just saw the accounts in the post, and the date for the AGM in advertisements. Rumour, yes, believe it! Rumour had it that PLO Lumumba would move a motion of no confidence in the CJ. I waited to see a copy of the motion, either online or sent to me through post. Nothing. No email. Nothing in the LSK website. No snailmail, either. The precise content of the motion, its grounds and reasons were top secret, to be speculated about in hushed whispers. Until 11.00 PM on the eve of the AGM, I was running up and down, calling anyone and everyone I thought could help, but I could not find notice of PLO's motion. When I asked a couple of Council members about it, I was told that the Secretary was not obliged either to publish or avail the motion. She had only to give notice, without further specification. Ultimately, I gave up.

* * * * * *

Come the AGM. PLO moved his motion, which he first sought to amend on the floor of the AGM. It was opposed by Dr Kuria. Voting ensued, by acclamation. PLO won.

I was not there. Nevertheless, apparently, I wanted all the judges sent home for new ones to be appointed, much like the ECK commissioners and now IIEC, etc. It did not matter to anyone that I protested the manner in which the whole rigmarole was conducted. I was a member and so its resolutions bound me, nipende nisipende. So I went 'upcountry' for my weekend, and when I came back, I finally read what was entitled "Statement of justification for the motion moved at the annual general meeting held on Saturday the 28th day of March, 2009 at the Inter-Continental Hotel." It was written by DR. PLO Lumumba, Advocate, on the 28th March, 2009. It shamelessly borrows the preamble of the American Declaration of Independence:

When in the life of a young Nation like Kenya, it becomes necessary to seek reconstitution of an important arm of the state like the judiciary....

The rest is a trite, high sounding, hyperbolic appeal to anger and indignation. The petition itself is a pedestrian, personal, trenchant, even voyeuristic attack on the person of the Chief Justice. It is written in the rankest travesty of grammar, is repetitive, unsructured, pompous and vain. As the Standard editorial put it,

Their manoeuverings shed no light on the substantive complaints in their petition, beyond those in a draft laughed off by commentators.

Sad is the day, and dark is the day, when PLO lent his name, and put his stamp of approval, to a document of such a tawdry calibre. Sad indeed.

Dr Kuria, however, put up paid advertisements in the dailies, demonstrating by dint of cogent, well buttressed arguments why he thinks that PLO's petition, motion and resolution is illegal, null and void. He cites procedural irregularities, substantive defects and legal and constitutional incompetence of the whole affair. He refers to the Law Society of Kenya Act, the Constitution and the United Nations Basic Principles. Of great significance to me is Dr Kuria's preamble where he states,

...the LSK chairman declined to allow many members opposed to the said motion to speak, and further prevented them from engaging in any deliberation on the matter and have an opportunity to raise any divergent views on the motion which was moved by Dr PLO Lumumba Advocate.

As a matter of principle, I have elected to support Dr Kuria, and look forward to signing the statement of protest. My reasons are fairly basic.

1. The Law Society of Kenya has an important public mandate enshrined in the Law Society of Kenya Act, to advise the public on matters touching on the rule of law and so forth.

2. In that capacity, and being a body comprised exclusively of officers of court, the LSK ought to conduct its affairs at all times with dignity, impartiality, without fear and without favour.

3. For allegations such as have been raised concerning the conduct of the AGM and the manner the motion was moved, and vote taken to have arisen, compelling a senior counsel who felt he was not heard, to publish his protest in the press for all the world to see is testimony to a failure of civility, good manners, democracy and equality in the LSK.

4. However right PLO's petition was, however appropriate the resolution, nothing justifies the steamrolling of dissent at the AGM.

5. As long as LSK remains mired in internecine strife, tribalism, sectarian conflict, corruption and irregularity, its moral standing is compromised, and with it, its authority to pontificate to Government and the public on matters within its statutory remit.

6. Good manners never yet hurt anyone.

At the moment, City Hall and LSK are comrades in anarchy. And that is tragic.

________________