The Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal has found former Law Society of Kenya President Nelson Havi guilty of professional misconduct.

Following the tribunal’s decision, the court ordered Havi to appear before it on November 17, 2025, for mitigation and sentencing.

The decision by the tribunal arose from a complaint filed by lawyer Allen Waiyaki Gichuhi, former President of LSK, following a series of tweets on social media against him.

“We find that the vulgar, abusive, and demeaning language employed by the Accused Advocate in the social media posts complained of by the Complaint seriously eroded the reputation of the legal profession in the eyes of the public and lowered the esteem of the fraternity of advocates in Kenya,” stated the tribunal in its judgment.

According to the Tribunal, the legal profession is known for its decorum, dignity, and culture, adding that young advocates are entitled to see the right examples and role models in their profession.

“The kind of behaviour exhibited by the Accused Advocate (Havi) in this matter fell far short of the mark. We, accordingly, find that it constituted professional misconduct. We find the Accused Advocate guilty of professional misconduct under Section 60(4) of the Advocates Act and convict him accordingly,” ruled the tribunal.

Waiyaki accused Havi of publishing statements on social platforms that were defamatory and injurious to his reputation.

The publication he added caused him mental anguish and distress, especially after receiving calls from various people who were following an interview on television and the X platform. According to him, publications amounted to blackmailing and maligning his name.

The statements he said amounted to professional misconduct and were incompatible with the status of an advocate and a breach of various professional standards of professional conduct as set out in the Code of Standards of Professional Practice and Ethical Conduct.

In his response on March 23, 2023, Havi denied the allegations leveled against him. He, however, admitted to the publication of tweets but denied any breach of professional ethics or misconduct.

Come to think of it, how can the statement “the prism of the female genitalia and not the brain. Nothing above the waist matters for its leaders”, which has been used before by Cecil Rhodes when he refused an invitation to attend an all-adult’s evening party for his friend’s… pic.twitter.com/xjnS6vnDR7
— Nelson Havi (@NelsonHavi) April 23, 2025

Havi also contested the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to award damages for defamation. He stated that the allegation raised by the Complainant arises from the style of his (Havi’s) leadership, which was aggressive and did not sit well with Waiyaki, and hence cannot be a ground for disciplinary action.

The tribunal, on April 7, 2025 its opinion, said Havi had a duty to uphold the highest standards of professional etiquette, decorum and dignity in his pronouncements and publications, to safeguard the overall dignity of the profession that he was leading at the time.

Leaders of LSK, the tribunal noted, represent the profession collectively such that when they display low or despicable standards of conduct, it is likely to be perceived by the general public as the acceptable standard of conduct in the entire profession.

“More so, when leaders in the profession are addressing fellow leaders (past or present), they must exercise utmost caution and decorum, bearing in mind that their public pronouncements have a significant ‘influencer effect’ especially among the younger members of the profession,” read the judgment in part.

The tribunal further noted that it is a serious act of professional misconduct for an advocate, let alone the President of the LSK, to accuse colleagues of theft in a public forum instead of lodging a formal complaint with the Directorate of Criminal Investigations for investigation and appropriate action.

“The Tribunal feels compelled to prevent the emerging trend of advocates mudslinging one another on social media and other public fora without regard to the damaging consequences to the dignity of the entire profession arising from such conduct,” read the judgment further.