A high ranking official at LSK has spilled the beans. Talking to Kenya Today, the LSK Council Member who spoke on condition of the strictest confidence and anonymity laid bare the scale of crisis at the advocateâ€™s body.
The official who claims LSK Chair Eric Mutua is ruining his chances of taking over the Leadership mantle after him due to Mutuaâ€™s insistence with the controversial and hugely unpopular project to construct an Arbitration Center painted the chairman of the society as an extremely avaricious man. He described his boss as â€œan intellectual featherweightâ€, and added that â€œHe is sneaky and exceedingly greedyâ€ The visibly angered council member proceeded to divulge sensitive details regarding the beleaguered LSK.
While we all saw the circus that was the LSK annual general meeting this March, the problems at LSK are apparently so deeply rooted that nothing short of cataclysmic events will resolve matters. Having been bettered at the March meeting, Mutua now faced his waterloo at the SGM that the OKOALSK group demanded be held immediately.
Having been served with a notice supported by more than 5 times the required number of signatures appended, a desperate Mutua decided to play his trump card. Knowing that the LSK regulations require that the signatures come from all the eight branches across the country, Mutua desperately dashed to Machakos on 22nd of May, to convince Ukambani Advocates that his goose would be cooked if the SGM was held.
He was being finished because he was from Ukambani, he cried. He cajoled and threatened them into withdrawing their signatures from the petition calling for an SGM. He came with pre-prepared Affidavits for his tribesmen to sign and they all did to â€œprotect one of their ownâ€. Mutua is now attempting to avoid the meeting on grounds that the signatures did not meet the requirement that they be from all the branches. How the Ukambani advocates are going to explain why they had submitted the signatures in the first place is not clear.
Although they are advocates of the high court of Kenya, They have to make people believe that they essentially appended their names and signatures on a circulating Blank piece of paper without an inkling of what they would be used for. In truth the document they signed was crystal clear on the overriding purpose, namely to convene a special general meeting. It is akin to trying to rescind a ballot already in the ballot box. For an advocate to say that he signed a clearly labeled document without having grasped its implication is gravely disingenuous. Such an advocate gives witness to his own severely deficient faculties.
The official also expressed his disappointment in the caliber of the firm holding brief for LSK in a case filed against the OKOA LSK leading lights. â€œTheir reputation as a hack enterprise precedes themâ€ he said.
It is puzzling why the Firm of Ongoya, Wambola and Co sought to use substituted instead of personal service seeing that the individuals they were suing were professional colleagues whose contacts and physical addresses they knew. It is even more baffling why the court choose to indulge their whims. Only a fortnight ago, respected columnist and Lawyer George Kegoro had dismantled the defective reasoning of the courts in his piece Gachoka-Koinange suit calls for new law of contempt.
â€œIt is odd that the court allowed service of the suit to be through a newspaper advertisement, something lawyers call â€œsubstituted service.â€ Normally, the best service is personal service, where court papers are furnished directly to the person that needs to be notified of the proceedings. Courts ordinarily require personal service unless a good reason is given against it. It remains unclear why the court allowed substituted service.â€
In his insightful piece, Kegoro further noted that the trend of Courts indulging certain litigants was disturbing.
â€œit points to the return of super-litigants in our courts of law, people who are somehow able to obtain orders that ordinarily are not available to other litigants.
The judiciary has had such litigants in the past, and recent reforms were thought to have addressed this issueâ€ he noted.
One would think that if the OKOA LSK group was an amorphous fringe outfit, then there would be nothing to fear. The LSK top brass are however known to be quavering with fright. In documents seen by Kenya Today, the LSK whimpers to the court that â€œUnless the application herein is heard expeditiously, the institution of the LSK shall be destroyed if the Respondents call for/as a result of the threatened Special General Meeting, or convene it.â€
Whoever heard of a man who seeks to stop a congregation of his own household while at the same time claiming to be the head? Mutua and co break into a cold sweat at the mere mention of an SGM. Panicky and frantic, they rightfully flee from scrutiny. If the guilty flee when no one pursues them, how much more will Mutua and his partners in crime hightail when they know full well that they are being hotly pursued by advocates in righteous anger?
The ending to this one is inevitable. It does not end well for them. They should have borrowed a leaf from the FIFA president Sepp Blatter who decided to salvage a modicum of dignity and resigned in the wake of a devastating corruption scandal. Then again the late Samuel Kivuitu once asked journalists, â€œWHERE in Africa have you heard of people resigning?â€The current LSK chairman must be a devout disciple. He seems determine to hang on to an ignoble end, but it is only a matter of time.