MOSIRIA FIRES SARCASTIC SHOT AT SAKAJA AFTER SACKING
SIFUNA’S 2027 BID DOOMED BY OLD GUARD ALLIANCE- MIGUNA
NE-YO ROCKS AS FANS FUME OVER DISAPPOINTMENT DESPITE COSTLY PAY
STEVO SIMPLE BOY DUMPS WIFE AFTER DNA BOMBSHELL
FRANCE IN FLAMES
BABU SALUTES LATE FATHER, MOTHER AND RAILA IN MASHUJAA TRIBUTE
SIFUNA-GACHAGUA TAG TEAM TAKES SHAPE AFTER FORMER DP’S LOW-KEY RETURN
SON DENOUNCES MACKENZIE, LABELS HIM A MURDERER
KENYANS MARK 63RD MASHUJAA DAY
Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Faith Odhiambo is facing mounting pressure to turn down a fresh appointment by President William Ruto.
Odhiambo was named Vice Chairperson of a newly formed Panel of Experts tasked with verifying, categorizing, and compensating victims of demonstrations and public protests. However, almost immediately after the announcement, civil society groups, lawyers, and political commentators urged her to reject the post, warning that it could damage her integrity and independence.
The Atheists in Kenya Society cautioned that the position risked undermining her hard-earned reputation. “Building a solid reputation takes hard work, patience, and time. But it only takes one wrong move to ruin it,” the group said in a statement.
Lawyer Miguna Miguna dismissed the panel as a government ploy, accusing the LSK boss and Amnesty International Kenya’s Irungu Houghton—also appointed—to a “cover-up” that could re-victimize protest victims. Another lawyer, Levi Munyeri, described the move as a possible public relations stunt, warning of reputational risks.
Online commentators also joined the criticism, with some accusing the government of attempting to capture critical civil society voices.
The panel has been tasked with designing a framework for compensation, authenticating victim data from institutions such as IPOA and KNCHR, and recommending accountability measures to the ODPP.
This is not the first time Odhiambo has been caught in a storm over a presidential appointment. In July 2024, she rejected her nomination to a public debt audit taskforce, terming it unconstitutional and insisting that the Auditor-General held the exclusive mandate to conduct such audits.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!