Why argue your case on twitter? Havi slams Judge Lenaola for contradicting himself on case handling

Nelson Havi, a sharp-tongued lawyer and former Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President, has raised serious concerns about Supreme Court Judge Isaac Lenaola’s apparent contradictions.

According to Havi, Lenaola initially held the position that cases against judges should be handled separately.

However, in an unexpected turn, the same judge later suggested consolidating all seven cases for the Chief Justice to appoint a bench to hear them together.

This sudden shift, Havi argues, reveals a troubling inconsistency within the judiciary, one that raises questions about its credibility and fairness.Havi is not alone in his concerns.

The judiciary is often accused of operating under double standards, and Lenaola’s actions seem to reinforce this perception. When a Supreme Court judge sets one standard only to contradict it later, it creates confusion and undermines public trust in the justice system.

If the law is to be applied fairly, then there must be consistency in judicial decisions. The fact that Lenaola has changed his stance on such a fundamental issue makes people wonder whether decisions are made based on legal principles or external pressures.

Another contradiction that Havi has pointed out is Lenaola’s position on the use of social media in legal debates.

The judge has previously discouraged the public and legal professionals from arguing legal matters on social media, emphasizing that the law should be debated in court.

Yet now, Lenaola himself has taken to Twitter to address the same matter he wants others to keep off social media.

This raises an important question should judges practice what they preach, or do they expect different rules to apply to them? The perception that some people are above the standards they set for others damages the judiciary’s reputation.

The debate goes beyond just Lenaola’s actions. It speaks to a broader concern about how Kenyan judges interact with the public.

Should judges comment on legal issues outside the courtroom, or should they let their rulings speak for themselves? Transparency is necessary in any democracy, but there is a fine line between engaging the public and undermining judicial independence.

If judges are seen as engaging in public arguments, it weakens the authority of their rulings. Lenaola’s social media activity contradicts his own previous statements, making people question whether he and other judges are applying the law fairly or simply reacting to public pressure.

Havi’s remarks reflect growing frustration with Kenya’s judiciary. Many Kenyans feel that judges are not always impartial and that some decisions appear politically influenced.

When a judge like Lenaola shifts positions on key matters and then contradicts himself on social media, it only adds to this skepticism.

The judiciary is supposed to be an institution of integrity, but when its leaders appear to be inconsistent, it makes citizens lose faith in the system.

The real issue here is whether Kenyan judges will uphold their professionalism or continue engaging in public debates that risk undermining their authority.

If a judge says that cases should not be discussed on social media, then he should also abide by that principle. If the judiciary wants to maintain its credibility, its officials must demonstrate consistency in their decisions and statements.

Otherwise, the perception that the law is applied selectively will persist, and trust in the judicial system will continue to erode.

Havi has once again brought attention to a critical issue, and the public is closely watching. Whether Lenaola will respond to these criticisms or continue as usual remains to be seen. However, one thing is clear when the judiciary contradicts itself, it opens the door for doubt and criticism. If Kenya’s legal system is to be taken seriously, its leaders must ensure that their actions align with the principles they expect others to follow.