When Isaack Hassan, former chair of Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission tried to pick up a new legal gig in 2018, the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) still hadn’t ruled on the disciplinary case hanging over his name.
That limbo meant he missed out on at least three senior positions, according to court papers filed that year. The root of the problem goes back to a complaint lodged in 2013, accusing Hassan of “gross misconduct” tied to multi‑million‑shilling transactions at the law firm Ibrahim, Issack & Co. Advocates. The saga has turned Hassan’s post‑IEBC career into a waiting room.
Background: Hassan’s time at the IEBC
Hassan rose to national prominence after being appointed chair of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission in 2018, during a period that saw Kenya’s 2017 general elections mired in controversy. His tenure was marked by efforts to restore public confidence after the disputed polls, but critics argued that his own credibility was eroding even before he left office.
After stepping down in 2022, Hassan announced he would return to private practice, hoping to leverage his experience to advise on electoral law. Instead, the LSK disciplinary process kept him on hold.
The LSK disciplinary saga
The original grievance was filed by a former colleague, identified in court documents only as Mr Athuok. He alleged that Hassan had overseen “transactions worth millions of shillings” that benefitted him personally and compromised the integrity of Ibrahim, Issack & Co. Advocates. The precise figures were never disclosed, but the language used suggested a breach of fiduciary duty.
Over the next five years, the LSK’s disciplinary committee refused to deliver a verdict thirteen times. Each postponement was justified by the tribunal as “requiring further investigation,” a phrase that quickly became a punchline among legal commentators.
Frustrated, Hassan engaged Chrysostom Akhaabi, a senior advocate, to petition the High Court for an injunction that would halt the endless proceedings. In a March 2018 filing, Akhaabi argued that the perpetual delay amounted to “institutional harassment” that threatened Hassan’s livelihood.
Legal battles and missed opportunities
While the court case dragged on, two major law firms in Nairobi declined to offer Hassan partnership roles, citing the unresolved disciplinary cloud. A senior partner at a leading Nairobi firm, who asked to remain anonymous, told the court that "the mere existence of a pending LSK case makes it risky for any firm to bring someone on board, especially given the public scrutiny".
In July 2018, Hassan missed out on a senior counsel position at the Ministry of Justice, a role that would have paid Ksh 2.5 million annually. The ministry’s spokesperson confirmed that the appointment was put on hold pending the outcome of the LSK matter.
Hassan’s own statements have been a blend of defiance and frustration. In an interview with a local radio station in August 2018, he said, "I have served my country; now I am being denied the chance to earn a living because a disciplinary committee can’t seem to make a decision. It’s not just my career – it erodes trust in our legal institutions."
Reactions from the legal fraternity and political circles
Legal analysts say the LSK’s handling of the case exposes a systemic weakness. Professor Emily Ngugi of the University of Nairobi’s Faculty of Law noted, "When a high‑profile attorney faces a decade‑long limbo, it sends a chilling message to all practitioners about the predictability of disciplinary mechanisms."
Opposition politicians have also weighed in. In a parliamentary debate in September 2018, an MP from the opposition party questioned the executive’s oversight of the LSK, asking whether political interference was slowing the process.
On the other side, a senior LSK official, who preferred not to be named, defended the tribunal, stating that "complex financial allegations require thorough forensic analysis, and rushing a verdict could compromise justice."
Implications for Kenya’s legal and electoral systems
The Hassan episode underscores two intertwined concerns: the credibility of Kenya’s electoral body and the robustness of its self‑regulatory legal framework. If a former IEBC chair cannot resume practice, critics argue that the message is clear – political prominence does not guarantee protection from procedural inertia.
Moreover, the case spotlights a broader trend: the increasing reliance on disciplinary committees to settle intra‑professional disputes, a model that, unlike criminal courts, lacks strict timelines.
For aspiring lawyers and former public officials, the fear is palpable. A survey conducted by the Kenya Bar Association in early 2020 revealed that 42 % of respondents felt "disciplines are often used as political tools rather than genuine ethical safeguards."
What lies ahead for Isaack Hassan?
As of early 2024, the LSK case remains pending. Hassan’s legal team has filed another motion seeking a definitive ruling within 90 days, arguing that the continued delay violates his constitutional right to a fair hearing.
Meanwhile, Hassan continues to comment on electoral matters, warning that the frequent turnover of IEBC commissioners threatens institutional memory. He recently urged the parliament to fast‑track legislation that would grant former commissioners immunity from arbitrary removal for a fixed term.
Whether the LSK will finally close the file, or whether Hassan will find a niche outside formal legal practice—perhaps as a consultant or academic—remains to be seen. One thing is certain: the case has become a touchstone for debates about accountability, due process, and the intersection of law and politics in Kenya.
Key Facts
- Complaint against Hassan dates to 2013, alleging misconduct at Ibrahim, Issack & Co. Advocates.
- LSK disciplinary committee has postponed ruling 13 times as of 2018.
- Hassan’s lawyer, Chrysostom Akhaabi, filed a High Court injunction in March 2018.
- Missed job offers include a senior counsel role at the Ministry of Justice and a partnership at a leading Nairobi firm.
- Case still unresolved as of 2024, with a new motion seeking a 90‑day decision.
Frequently Asked Questions
What triggered the LSK disciplinary case against Isaack Hassan?
The case originated from a 2013 complaint by a former colleague, Mr Athuok, who alleged that Hassan had overseen multi‑million‑shilling transactions at Ibrahim, Issack & Co. Advocates that constituted gross misconduct.
How has the unresolved case affected Hassan’s career?
Because the LSK has not rendered a decision, major law firms and the Ministry of Justice have withdrawn offers, leaving Hassan without a senior legal position and forcing him to rely on public commentary for income.
Why has the LSK disciplinary committee delayed ruling so many times?
The tribunal cites the complexity of the financial allegations, needing forensic audits and extensive witness testimony, but critics argue the delays exceed reasonable investigative timelines.
What impact does this case have on Kenya’s legal profession?
It raises concerns about the efficiency of self‑regulation, possibly eroding public confidence in the Law Society of Kenya and prompting calls for clearer procedural deadlines.
Has Hassan taken any steps to resolve the matter?
His attorney, Chrysostom Akhaabi, has filed a High Court motion seeking a definitive ruling within 90 days, arguing the prolonged limbo violates Hassan’s constitutional right to a fair hearing.
Jared Mulconry
October 7, 2025 AT 20:51It’s clear that the LSK’s endless postponements are doing more harm than good for the profession. When a senior lawyer is left hanging, younger advocates start to wonder whether the system protects anyone. The uncertainty also stalls the flow of expertise that could benefit ongoing electoral reforms. I hope the tribunal finally sets a firm deadline.
Brandon Rosso
October 15, 2025 AT 09:40In my view, the institutional inertia exhibited by the Law Society of Kenya represents a regrettable but rectifiable flaw. By instituting a transparent timetable for disciplinary inquiries, the society would restore confidence among both practitioners and the public. Such procedural reforms could serve as a catalyst for broader judicial efficiency. I remain optimistic that the forthcoming motion will compel decisive action.
Tracee Dunblazier
October 22, 2025 AT 22:29The pattern of delay described in the dossier suggests a systemic aversion to accountability. While the LSK may argue that complexity necessitates caution, the repeated deferrals appear disproportionate. This raises questions about the robustness of internal oversight mechanisms. Nonetheless, the factual record, as presented, underscores the need for procedural safeguards.
Edward Garza
October 30, 2025 AT 11:18Another endless stall, another career in limbo.
Allen Rodi
November 7, 2025 AT 00:07From a practical standpoint, firms could mitigate risk by instituting provisional engagements with lawyers under investigation, allowing them to contribute on a case‑by‑case basis. This approach respects due process while preserving valuable expertise. Additionally, a clear policy on conflict‑of‑interest checks would reassure clients. I’ve seen similar frameworks work in other jurisdictions, and they could be adapted for Kenya.