As advocates go to the polls today, the three candidates vying to lead the Law Society of Kenya offer distinctive answers to the same question: what is the LSK for? Writes Dennis Kaboro, law student.
In the years since the Gen Z protests of 2024 shook the political stage, the bar association — representing over 22,000 advocates — has been in the public spotlight as a defender of constitutional order.
Today, its members choose who will carry that mantle for the next two years. The three candidates on the ballot — Charles Kanjama, Mwaura Kabata and Peter Wanyama — each bring a distinct philosophy about what the LSK should be, and what it should fight for.
Beneath the policy positions and the personal attacks of the final debate, the LSK election is fundamentally a referendum on identity. Should the Society be a trade union, fighting for the economic survival of its members in an increasingly crowded and constrained market?
Or should it be a guardian of constitutional order especially in light of the incoming 2027 general elections, even when that means fighting battles that don't directly benefit advocates' bottom lines? Or can it be both — and if so, who is best placed to hold that tension together?
Charles Kanjama: The Constitutionalist
Charles Kanjama, Senior Counsel, is the candidate who most explicitly frames this election in terms of national stakes. A constitutional governance advocate with over 20 years in practice, Kanjama has built his campaign around the idea that the LSK's most vital function is defending the rule of law — and that doing so requires an organization that is independent of the state.
At the final pre-election debate on February 16, Kanjama positioned himself as "the most independent candidate" — a pointed jab at his rivals. He took particular aim at Wanyama's extensive advisory work for county governments, arguing that an advocate who earns from the consolidated fund cannot credibly challenge the state. His anti-corruption pitch was equally direct: where others propose task forces and committees, Kanjama promises to "make noise" — to shine a public light on rot in the bench, the bar and the registries until something gives.
It is a combative posture, and not one without its critics. During the debate, questions arose about whether his strong personal convictions — he is known as a devout Christian and a conservative voice in public discourse — sometimes blur the line between professional advocacy and personal belief. Kanjama pushed back sharply: "I'm a professional." But the exchange underscored a tension that has followed his campaign: can a man of such strong moral conviction be the pluralist leader of an increasingly secular bar needs?
Mwaura Kabata: The Insider Reformer
If Kanjama is the outsider challenging the institution, Mwaura Kabata is the institution itself — a man who has spent eight years in LSK leadership, currently serving as Vice President, and who now asks members to trust him with the top job. His pitch is built on continuity and competence, but also on a genuine philosophical departure from the outward-facing activism of recent years.
Kabata's central argument — that the LSK has become "more outward than inward-looking" — resonated with many in the room at the final debate. He sees an organisation that has championed constitutional battles in the streets while neglecting the bread-and-butter struggles of its own members: shrinking practice space, an influx of new graduates without pathways to work, financial insecurity for in-house and public sector lawyers who don't receive non-practice allowances. He wants the LSK's core function to concentrate on, "service to members."
Yet his record as an insider has also become a liability. Kabata faced pointed questions at the debate about the withdrawal of high-profile public interest litigation cases — including a fuel levy case involving billions of shillings — without adequate communication to members. The withdrawals raised uncomfortable questions about whether the LSK buckled under state pressure. Kabata attributed the decision to an independent committee outside his docket, an answer that did not fully satisfy his critics.
He is the candidate who has thought most concretely about economic challenges facing advocates. Whether that pragmatism is a strength or a sign of diminished ambition will define how members vote.
Peter Wanyama: The Legislative Architect
Peter Wanyama is on his second run at the LSK presidency, having finished runner-up to Faith Odhiambo in 2024. The advocate of the High Court brings 18 years of experience, with a specialism that sets him apart from his rivals: he is a legislative drafter and policy architect who has contributed to over 32 statutes on behalf of government agencies and county governments.
That record is both his greatest asset and his most significant vulnerability. Kanjama has used it as a weapon, suggesting that a lawyer financially dependent on government contracts cannot credibly hold the state to account. Wanyama craftily built rebuttal on this very objection : he insists his 15 years of experience navigating government structures actually makes him better placed to resist executive interference — not worse. On the debate stage, he defended his advisory role in the impeachment of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua by drawing a clean line between acting as a professional for a client and holding a personal view.
His policy vision threads a middle path between his rivals. He supports a "strengthened bar" that both serves members and safeguards the nation's interests — a formulation that avoids the starkness of Kabata's inward focus and Kanjama's combative outward posture. His proposed tool for fighting corruption and misconduct — an efficiency and ethics task force — is less glamorous than Kanjama's vow to "make noise," but arguably more institutional.
The question for Wanyama is whether, after finishing second once, he can convince an electorate that he is the candidate of synthesis — not just compromise.
A Rare Consensus
One issue that united all three candidates — and perhaps signals the future direction of the profession regardless of who wins — was sexual harassment within the legal workplace. Both Kanjama and Kabata raised it explicitly as a condition that must be addressed. It is a small but telling detail: the LSK's next leader will govern not just the public face of the bar, but its culture.
Whatever the outcome, the debate has made one thing clear: the advocates of Kenya are not short of opinions about what their society should stand for. The challenge for whoever wins will be earning the trust of those who voted for someone else.
—
*All quotes and debate positions are drawn from the LSK Presidential Debate held on February 16, 2026.
