Columnists

Valuable lessons from the LSK elections

vote

Lawyer Gregory Mutuma (right) casts his vote at the Meru High Court on February 22. FILE PHOTO | NMG

The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) carried out its elections on February 22, 2018. It followed along campaign period. The elections followed hot on the heels of the 2017 General Election. It was, therefore, an interesting process to watch and gauge the nature of the Kenyan elections.

The LSK is an important body, being the sole body representing lawyers in the country. Past efforts to argue for a parallel body for lawyers have been thwarted. The body has a prominent role in societal affairs.

First, lawyers occupyi several key governance positions and are found at the cusp of critical decisions. In addition, the Act creating the Law Society of Act bestows upon the society the responsibility of ensuring that public interest is protected in the administration of justice.

Traditionally, LSK was revered. Its voice was respected and helped shape many national discourses. However, this has waned over the years.

The lowest point in the leadership of the society were the elections that took place two years ago. Dubbed the Okoa LSK movement, the process resulted in polarisation of the society and reduction of its voice.

The society as a collectivity was heard of more in mundane issues, disagreements and less in public interest.

Coupled with the state of political polarisation, the leadership of the society may not be remembered for much beyond suspending the construction of the arbitration centre. There is much more to leadership and expectation from LSK beyond this single issue.

The new council must realise that the organisation is expected to focus both on the service of its membership and the wider society. Its voice must be heard in critical rule of law and governance conversation.

The elections revealed several things. First, as a young lawyer, I received a list of aspirants for various elective positions and had to choose without much opportunity of listening to the candidates. We have come full circle.

Candidates traverse the entire length and breadth of the country seeking votes. At times one is not sure whether the campaign is for a political office or representation of professional colleagues.

While providing opportunity for electors to get to interrogate their leadership is important, time may be ripe to relook the regulation of campaigns within the society to reduce its political undertones and refocus it more on professionalism.

This includes dealing with campaign financing, mudslinging and partisan polarisation.

To the credit of the candidates, the campaigns were more sober and professional. The joint campaigns provide lessons for how to organise future campaigns.

LSK should consider providing for structured fora for campaigns and avoiding the outlandish treating and personal campaigns by candidates. This will ensure that the negative aspects of political campaigns that have permeated the society’s elections are curbed.

The other lesson is the influence of social media in elections. Candidates heavily invested in social media engagement. With the levels of social media use in the country, this is going to be more and more influential in shaping views and perceptions.

The 2017 General Election also revealed the negative impact of unregulated social media. To enhance the credibility of elections, it is imperative that regulations on the use of social media be put in place so as to enhance its positive role of faster and wider reach to electorate and deal with its negativity as a tool for spreading negative propaganda.

The other issue is the changing demographics of the society and its impact on the running of LSK. Law is always said to be an orderly society and one that respects seniority. Increasingly, this rule is being challenged by a reality that there society just like the world is increasingly young.

READ: Nelson Havi locked out of LSK election

The majority of the members are young. This election cycle saw even litigation about a rule that restricted advocates of less than 15 years practice from contesting for the presidency of the society.

Once the election dust settles, the new leadership must lead the society in reclaiming its place in the country’s discourse. This will require introspection and housekeeping first. LSK must retrace its steps and focus on its mandate within the law.

This will require the leadership to harness the potential of its membership, seek to develop consensus and avoid being polarising.

A starting point is to appreciate that it is leading at a time of great polarisation in the country’s politics. Navigating this so as to build bridges, represent the entire membership and not sections of it will be a determinant of its success.

The leadership also has to realise that the membership is engaged in many areas of law. It must address the core welfare issues of practice.

But recognise that many members are also outside the traditional court practice. Its focus must be on law in its multiple practice.

Importantly, it must discharge its statutory responsibility of contributing to the administration of justice and protection of the rule of law.