Former LSK President Nelson Havi has again publicly accused Supreme Court Judge Isaac Lenaola of being involved in fraud, raising fresh questions about the integrity of some members of the judiciary.
Speaking on his official X page, Havi claimed that an affidavit by Victoria Keen shows that Lenaola allegedly defrauded the estate of John Keen through the law firm Ngeti, Omiti & Bush Advocates.
Havi described the affidavit, which spans 784 pages, as clear evidence of wrongdoing by the Supreme Court judge.
Havi, who is representing Captain Kung’u in a defamation case linked to Lenaola, argued that the alleged misconduct explains the judge’s strict approach to silencing critics.
According to Havi, Lenaola’s actions as a judge are influenced by his past, which he claims includes questionable dealings that the public has not yet fully uncovered. He stressed that Lenaola’s efforts to prevent exposure of his past behavior are a pattern aimed at gagging anyone who seeks to highlight his alleged wrongdoings.
The lawyer described it as ironic that a judge entrusted with upholding the law would allegedly exploit his position to defraud an estate. Havi questioned how Lenaola could expect to evade accountability for such actions and suggested that this history of alleged misconduct drives his attempts to control narratives and suppress criticism.
This latest attack on Lenaola comes amid a period of heightened scrutiny of Kenya’s judiciary. Many critics have been vocal about corruption and lack of accountability within the courts, pointing to cases where influential figures have allegedly manipulated legal processes for personal gain.
Havi’s statements feed into public debates about the need for transparency and integrity among judges, especially at the highest levels of the judiciary.
While Lenaola has not publicly responded to these latest allegations, the accusations by Havi are likely to add fuel to ongoing discussions about judicial reforms and the mechanisms in place to hold judges accountable.
Legal observers note that such claims, particularly when involving high-ranking judicial officers, can have significant implications for public confidence in the courts.
Havi’s insistence that Lenaola has a history of questionable conduct and his vocal criticism of the judiciary underline the tensions between some legal practitioners and members of the bench.
The situation highlights the challenges Kenya faces in ensuring that justice is not only done but also seen to be done, especially when allegations involve senior judges entrusted with protecting the rule of law. The accusations against Lenaola, whether proven or not, are likely to keep public attention on the judiciary and the pressing need for accountability in legal institutions.
Add Comment