Where is the Watchdog? LSK's New Sheriff Charles Kanjama Goes Quiet as Kenya Burns

When Charles Kanjama took over the helm of the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) a few weeks ago, expectations were high.

The legal fraternity anticipated a continuation of the assertive, interventionist institution that would confront state power, defend civil liberties, and respond in real time to constitutional high visibility in court battles, rapid public statements, and frequent interventions on matters of constitutionalism and police accountability.

Instead, a different picture is emerging, one that has now spilt into public debate, social media outrage, and uncomfortable comparisons with the previous administration under Faith Odhiambo.

Barely weeks into office, questions are mounting: has the Law Society of Kenya gone quiet when it is needed most, and where is its new president?

The latest growing debate over the LSK’s visibility came on Monday, May 4, 2026, at State House in Dar es Salaam, where Tanzanian President Samia Suluhu stood beside President William Ruto during a joint press briefing held after the signing of eight bilateral agreements and delivered controversial remarks that reverberated across East Africa.
"Those who cause disorder and disturb their governments must face firm action," Suluhu said in Swahili.

"I have told President Ruto we must stand firm against those who lack discipline. We should not choose between Tanzanians or Kenyans. If they come to me, I flog them with canes; if they come to you, you flog them with canes, so that they behave."

The statement, blunt, chilling, and delivered with the casual authority of a head of state, immediately drew condemnation from rights defenders, opposition figures, and civil society leaders across the region.

A government-appointed commission had found in April 2026 that at least 518 people were killed during Tanzania's 2025 protest period.

Suluhu's words were not hypothetical and they carried the weight of a documented record.

President Ruto, standing alongside her, did not publicly counter the statement during the joint briefing, a silence that immediately fueled regional concern over the direction of civic freedoms in the country.

Former Chief Justice David Maraga was among the first to react.

"I am deeply disturbed by the remarks attributed to President Samia Suluhu. The axis of tyranny that Presidents Suluhu and Ruto are constructing threatens to return our region to autocracy," he said.

But it was the response, and the timing of that response, from Kenya's two most recent LSK presidents that ignited a national conversation with implications far beyond legal circles.

Odhiambo, who left the LSK presidency on March 27, 2026, did not wait. Within hours, her statement landed swiftly, constitutionally precise and politically fearless.

“When two heads of state meet to discuss how to whip and discipline citizens demanding accountability, we’ve crossed from democracy into dictatorship,” she stated.

Citing Articles 33, 36 and 37 of the Constitution, Odhiambo warned that any attempt to suppress civic expression violates Kenya’s fundamental democratic guarantees on freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly.

The statement set the national tone. It dominated social media for hours and forced a wider constitutional debate that drew in rights groups, legal scholars, and politicians across the political divide.

Hours later, the current LSK president Kanjama issued his own statement affirming constitutional protections and rule of law principles.

Legally sound. Professionally drafted. But it came second, after the national narrative had already been shaped by his predecessor.

That sequence, Odhiambo first, Kanjama hours later, has become the sharpest symbol of a public discomfort that has been simmering since Kanjama assumed office.

The Suluhu episode was not the only recent moment that demanded LSK's institutional voice at moments of national tension.

On Thursday, May 7, 2026, Odhiambo again issued a public statement, this time on an incident inside the Senate Chamber that had occurred on March 25, 2026, when Senator Karen Nyamu made remarks directed at a young female student who had attended Parliament under the School Voluntary Service Scheme.

Odhiambo's response was immediate, constitutionally grounded and seeking action against Senator Nyamu.

"What happened in the Senate Chamber on March 25 2026, was not just an embarrassment but a gross violation of the dignity of a child," she stated.

She invoked Article 53(1)(d) of the Constitution, which guarantees every child the right to be protected from abuse and inhuman treatment, and Section 22(1) of the Children Act 2022, which prohibits subjecting a child to psychological abuse, including acts causing embarrassment and humiliation.

"An apology that is read and accepted in minutes is NOT justice," she said, calling for concrete accountability measures beyond Senator Nyamu's theatrical apology in the chamber.

No comparable statement has emerged from the current LSK leadership.

The Suluhu and Nyamu episodes are the most visible flashpoints, but critics point to a pattern of reduced public visibility from the new LSK president during other national incidents.

In Kitui County's Mwingi North sub-county, a devastating sequence of inter-communal attacks linked to armed camel herders left at least seven people dead at Kwa Kamari trading centre on April 25, 2026.

A 14-year-old Grade 7 student, Joseph Mutemi, was hacked to death days later after giving his killers water to drink. Hundreds of residents fled their homes.

Shops, motorbikes, and a petrol station were destroyed; gunshots shattered the windows of the local police station.

Governor Julius Malombe condemned the attacks as "heinous, senseless, and unacceptable."

Security agencies deployed. Political leaders demanded answers. The LSK president said nothing publicly.

When protesters were arrested amid demonstrations against fuel price hikes recently, no widely visible LSK-led legal mobilisation followed.
When questions arose over a Sh4 billion oil sector scandal implicating senior government officials, LSK was silent again.

When President Ruto and opposition leaders led by Rigathi Gachagua and Fred Matiang'i exchanged fierce public words in a confrontation that raised the political temperature across the country, the institution that has historically served as a constitutional referee did not feature prominently in the national discourse.

This week, the silence took on its starkest dimension again when a 24-year-old suspect, Wycliffe Omondi, was found dead inside Ngegu Police Station in Homa Bay County, in what police described as a suspected suicide by hanging using shoelaces obtained during his supper.

County Police Commander Lawrence Kollem confirmed the matter had been referred to the Independent Policing Oversight Authority.

As of publication, Kanjama had issued no public comment on the matter, a silence that has not gone unnoticed within legal and civic spaces.

The contrast with the Odhiambo era is difficult to ignore.

When blogger Albert Ojwang, known online as Kwanjwag, died under disputed circumstances at Central Police Station in Nairobi during the Gen Z protest period, Odhiambo was among the first voices of institutional condemnation, and she sustained the legal pressure until it produced results.

The then-Central Police Station commander, Samson Talaam and other officers were subsequently arrested and charged with murder.

The contrast with the previous administration is stark, and increasingly central to the national debate.

Under Odhiambo, LSK was defined by speed, visibility, and confrontation.

During the anti-Finance Bill 2024 protests, LSK represented more than 190 arrested demonstrators, deploying lawyers to courtrooms and police stations within hours of mass arrests, staying past midnight to prevent illegal detention and establishing a Youth Legal Defence Fund to sustain the effort.

When the deputy Inspector General of Police, Gilbert Masengeli, defied seven court orders in August 2024 directing the release of the abducted "Kitengela Three," Odhiambo led the successful sentence of the police boss for contempt of court, a precedent-setting conviction that shook the executive.

When 48 youth were arrested in Isiolo for allegedly booing President Ruto, LSK dispatched lawyers to appear in court on their behalf, a vivid demonstration that the LSK's mandate extended to citizens in every corner of the country.

When the government sought to pass the Constitution of Kenya Amendment Bill 2025, widely seen as an attempt to weaken judicial independence, LSK mounted a successful legal challenge in court under Odhiambo's regime.

When appointed Vice Chairperson of a government-constituted compensation panel for protest victims, Odhiambo resigned rather than accept proximity to executive power, choosing to "champion victims' rights from the outside" and preserve LSK's institutional independence.

The current debate also traces back to Kanjama’s pre-office interviews over abductions or rights violations.

In a televised interview in early March that is currently being shared virally, he was pressed on what he would do about ongoing state-linked abductions.

Rather than signalling aggressive institutional intent, he advised citizens to report to police, the DCI, and the media, the standard procedural channels.

 "If you get abducted, report to current LSK President Faith Odhiambo, the police, DCI and media," he said, citing the sitting leadership.

When pressed, he lectured on process: "I think it's important that Kenyans are educated on the process you follow when you have those violations."

The interviewer acknowledged the pushback his comments had received on X, noting that people felt he was being "tone deaf."

While procedurally correct, Critics found the framing of citizens as needing education, rather than a more urgent legal bureaucratic approach to urgent rights violations, deeply unsettling.

After backlash, he issued a March 17 video statement saying he would ensure the executive follows the rule of law as Odhiambo had done.

But many Kenyans remained unconvinced. His recent appearance at the State House for the swearing-in of over 50 newly appointed judges on Monday this week, a ceremony presided over by President Ruto, also drew scrutiny.

Odhiambo had maintained deliberate institutional distance from the State House throughout her tenure. In Kenya's political environment, where every gesture carries meaning, the optics were widely noted.

Online reaction has been unsparing, with scrutiny directed at nearly every move and statement by Kanjama.

Some users accuse the institution under Kanjama's leadership of abandoning its watchdog role.

“We used to see LSK everywhere. Now it is silent when Kenyans are being arrested and killed, "one X user wrote

"We had faith in Faith. Huyu wa saa hii, we don't even know his name or even if he knows his work."

Economist Edgar Njiru questioned the leadership’s absence from high-profile national crises.

"Kanjama, were you sworn in, or are you still waiting? Where did you disappear to? Are you in bed with the government?" Njiru posted on X.

Duncan Mwiti captured the mood: "Sometimes, people don't realise the importance of water until the well runs dry. Faith Odhiambo remains the premier defender of human rights by all standards."

Gilbert Wanderi added: “This guy (Kanjama) is ineffective like former president Nelson Havi; I can’t even tell whether he is present or absent.”

 "Lawyers, the imbecile you made your president has done everything we predicted to make sure the regime is as comfortable as possible," Peter Ndungu said.

Supporters of Kanjama, however, argue that legal strategy is not always visible, and that litigation, negotiations, and structural reforms often unfold away from public view.

"Not every meaningful legal intervention happens in public view, real work in litigation and negotiations often takes time before results become visible,’' Peter Mutie defended him.

But Kenya's constitutional landscape has never rewarded institutional caution with public trust.

The LSK's legitimacy has always rested on its willingness to show up. in court, at police stations, in the public square, and before it was convenient.

For now, the question defining this new era remains unresolved: Is this a strategic recalibration of institutional voice, or the quiet fading of a once-unmissable constitutional defender?

In Kenya’s volatile constitutional landscape, silence is never neutral. It is often the loudest signal of all.