Lawyer Willis Otieno has raised concerns over the use of social media campaigns by candidates vying for the presidency of the Law Society of Kenya (LSK).
In a post on X, Otieno questioned the credibility of candidates who rely on hashtags and online support from individuals outside the legal profession.
“Why would an Advocate seeking the office of LSK President sponsor hashtags on X run by people who are not even members of the Bar? Serious question,” he wrote, emphasizing that the LSK is a professional body, not a platform for popularity contests or digital theatrics.
Otieno argued that the focus of any candidacy should be on jurisprudence, institutional vision, and defending constitutionalism, rather than outsourcing campaigns to online operatives with no professional stake.
“If your candidacy is rooted in jurisprudence, institutional vision, and defence of constitutionalism… why outsource your voice to online mercenaries with no stake in the profession?” he asked.
The lawyer further noted that the LSK electorate comprises practicing advocates who are more concerned with legal records, rulings, and professional conduct than trending hashtags or online popularity.
He warned that campaigns leveraging non-members for digital momentum risk sending the wrong message.
“So when a candidate leans on non-members to manufacture digital momentum, it raises uncomfortable questions: Is the campaign speaking to lawyers or performing for political spectators? Is this about institutional leadership or ego amplification? Is the goal to persuade the Bar or to intimidate it with artificial online noise?” Otieno queried.
His remarks have sparked discussions among advocates about the role of social media in professional leadership contests, highlighting the tension between traditional professional engagement and modern online campaigning.
The LSK presidency election, expected later this year, has seen heightened activity on digital platforms, with multiple aspirants actively promoting their campaigns online, prompting scrutiny from peers concerned about professionalism and the integrity of the electoral process.