When Senior Counsel Turn to Public Vilification, the Rule of Law Suffers; Nelson Havi, STOP Peddling Your Petty Political Influence

There is a dangerous line in every democracy between criticism of judges and the public humiliation of judges. That line matters because courts do not survive on force. They survive on public confidence, procedural discipline, and the shared understanding that if a judicial officer errs, there are lawful channels to challenge that error. When a senior lawyer abandons those channels and instead chooses public denunciation, intimidation by commentary, and trial by social media, he does not strengthen accountability. He weakens the justice system itself.

That is why the treatment of Justice Hellen Wasilwa deserves scrutiny. Not because judges are above criticism. They are not. Not because judicial decisions cannot be challenged. They can and should be. But because the law requires that those challenges be made in the right forum, through the right process, and with the seriousness that the administration of justice demands.

The case of Wasilwa v Judicial Service Commission is important precisely because it is not a judgment declaring that judges can never be questioned. It says something narrower and more significant. The Employment and Labour Relations Court held that the Judicial Service Commission violated Justice Wasilwa’s right to fair administrative action by failing to first determine her threshold objection on jurisdiction before proceeding with the complaint against her. The court found that JSC should have addressed whether it had the authority to entertain a complaint that, in substance, challenged a judge’s decision made in the exercise of judicial authority. Instead, it proceeded as though no such foundational objection had been raised. That, the court held, was a fundamental legal misstep under Article 47 and the Fair Administrative Action Act.

The facts matter. Justice Wasilwa had issued a ruling in the Kericho ELRC matter involving the nullification of a land transfer linked to workers’ unpaid dues. A complaint was then lodged before the JSC accusing her of misconduct and seeking her removal. Her core objection was straightforward: if the complaint was really an attack on the correctness of her decision, then the lawful path was appeal or review, not disciplinary proceedings masquerading as oversight. The court did not finally decide every issue in her favor, but it did say clearly that JSC was wrong to sidestep that threshold question.

That is not a minor procedural technicality. It goes to the heart of judicial independence. A judge cannot be expected to decide cases fearlessly if every unpopular ruling can instantly be converted into a disciplinary ambush without first asking whether the complaint is really just a disguised appeal. The court itself underscored that judges enjoy immunity for decisions made in the exercise of judicial authority unless their conduct deliberately denies parties their rights. It also cited precedent warning that suing or pursuing a judge simply because one dislikes an unfavorable decision, instead of appealing or seeking review, is a misconception and a step in the wrong direction.

That is the proper legal frame. Now place beside it the public posture adopted by Nelson Havi.

Publicly indexed results from Havi’s X account show him referring to Justice Wasilwa in extremely severe terms, including calling her “the most corrupt Judge in Kenya.” Other indexed posts attribute to him statements describing her as “the epitome of incompetence and corruption,” and another post says she was “holding the shorter end of the stick at the JSC” and “may just be our first human head.” Those are not the language of sober legal disagreement. They are the language of public destruction.

A senior advocate is not an ordinary commentator. He is an officer of the court. His words carry professional weight. When such a person makes sweeping allegations of corruption against a judge in the public square, without pointing the public to a proved finding in a competent forum, he is not merely expressing an opinion. He is amplifying suspicion against the institution from which the entire legal order draws legitimacy. He is effectively telling the public that the courtroom can be delegitimized through rhetoric before due process has run its course.

That is where this stops being a personal quarrel and becomes a constitutional problem.

Kenya’s justice system cannot function if every disappointed litigant, every aggrieved lawyer, and every politically connected loudspeaker decides that the better path is to scandalize judges instead of challenge rulings through appeal, review, complaint procedures, and evidence. The rule of law is not defended by shouting “corrupt” the loudest. It is defended by proving misconduct where misconduct exists, and by respecting institutional process even when one is furious with the outcome.

And that is why this moment is so unsettling. If a senior lawyer who knows the architecture of the law chooses the politics of public assault over the discipline of legal process, what lesson does that teach ordinary citizens? If those trained in the law will not model fidelity to the law, then what exactly are wananchi being asked to believe in? If a Senior Counsel cannot trust the channels provided by the Constitution and statute, why should the ordinary Kenyan trust them either?

This is not a defense of judicial impunity. Judges must be accountable. Complaints against judges must be investigated where there is evidence of misconduct, bad faith, abuse of office, bribery, or conduct that strips away judicial immunity. The Judiciary is not a sacred cow. But accountability is not the same thing as defamation by repetition. It is not the same thing as branding a judge corrupt because one is unhappy with her decision. It is not the same thing as using public influence to create an atmosphere in which judicial officers are punished first in the court of public opinion and only later, perhaps, in the court of law.

There is another reason this matters. Once judges are publicly hunted as villains for making controversial decisions, the message sent to the Bench is unmistakable: rule against powerful interests and prepare to be dragged, branded, and politically isolated. That breeds fear. Fear breeds hesitation. Hesitation breeds weak judging. And weak judging destroys the constitutional promise that disputes will be resolved by independent courts applying law rather than pressure.

The Judiciary already operates in a climate of intense public frustration, political hostility, and endless suspicion. That climate does not improve when influential lawyers add accelerant to it. It worsens. It becomes easier for political actors to turn every adverse ruling into evidence of conspiracy. It becomes easier for the public to stop distinguishing between lawful criticism and mob intimidation. It becomes easier for justice itself to look like just another arena of factional warfare.

What is needed now is fairness, not idol worship; accountability, not incitement; evidence, not theatrics.

If Nelson Havi has evidence of misconduct against any judge, including Justice Hellen Wasilwa, the law provides channels. File the complaint. Present the material. Let it be tested. Let the judge answer. Let the institution rule. And let the public examine the outcome. That is how constitutional democracies work. But if what is being offered is mainly outrage, insult, and scorched-earth commentary, then it must be called what it is: an attack not just on a judge, but on the norms that make judging possible.

The Wasilwa decision should remind Kenyans of a basic principle: institutions must first ask whether they have the power to proceed before they proceed. That is true for JSC. It is also true in the wider court of public opinion. Before reputations are shredded and trust in the Judiciary is dragged through the mud, the threshold question should always be this: is there proof, is there process, and is this the proper forum?

Without those three things, what remains is not accountability. It is organized unfairness.

Unfortunately, I have realised that Havi is specifically targeting judges on an ethnic basis, targeting Luhya Judges , which means that his juvenile tantrums are personal. Sadly, he has used highly inflammatory public language against Justice Wasilwa while the underlying legal record shows a court vindicated her complaint that JSC ignored a crucial jurisdictional objection.

Read Also: When Tax Justice Kills Enterprise: Why KRA’s Court Victory Is Bad for Kenya’s SMEs