Kenya, 12 January 2026 – The government has been dealt a stinging legal and political setback after the High Court in Nakuru froze the hiring of private lawyers by all public institutions, triggering shockwaves through ministries, State agencies and county governments that have long relied on costly external law firms.
The ruling has abruptly halted a practice that critics say has quietly drained billions of shillings from the public purse under the cover of “specialised legal services.”
A citizen-led petition placed the issue squarely before the court, arguing that the State cannot justify outsourcing legal work when it already maintains a fully funded legal bureaucracy — from the Attorney General and Solicitor General to State counsels, county attorneys and legal officers embedded across government.
The petitioners told the court that allowing parallel legal procurement is not only wasteful but structurally irrational, amounting to paying twice for the same service.
“It beats logic that despite the fact the public employs qualified attorneys, State counsels, county lawyers and legal officers, the same public entities still procure private advocates at exorbitant prices,” the petitioners argued, warning that this practice has become a gateway for unchecked expenditure and opaque contracts.
The judges were persuaded that the issue goes far beyond routine procurement and strikes at the heart of constitutional principles on prudent use of public funds.
In a sharply worded ruling, the court found that the petition raised serious questions about accountability, efficiency and legality, and that allowing the continued engagement of private law firms while the case is pending could lead to irreversible financial damage.
“A conservatory order is hereby issued suspending the engagement, procuring, continuing procurements and pending payments of private advocates and law firms by all public entities,” the judge ruled, adding that this would apply wherever government already has internal legal capacity.
Behind the court’s decision lies a deeper scandal that has been quietly simmering for years — the ballooning cost of external legal services in government. The petitioners pointed to recent high-profile transactions in which public agencies allegedly paid hundreds of millions of shillings to private lawyers for work that could have been handled in-house. One example cited was a controversial transaction involving a major State corporation, where legal fees reportedly ran into hundreds of millions despite the existence of a fully staffed government legal department.
“This is not about denying government access to justice,” the petitioners told the court.