Prominent Kenyan lawyer Danstan Omari has threatened legal action against journalist Halligan Agade over a controversial Facebook publication that he claims has subjected him to public ridicule and damaged his professional reputation.
Through his legal representatives, Danstan Omari and Associates Advocates, the lawyer has demanded KSh15 million in damages, accusing Agade of publishing malicious content intended to undermine his dignity, credibility and standing in the legal profession.
The dispute stems from an image allegedly shared on Agade’s official Facebook account depicting Omari seated on a street, wearing torn and worn-out clothes while carrying a bag bearing the words “KILLER OF DESTINY”.
Omari’s legal team argues that the illustration and accompanying message were deliberately crafted to portray him as a person associated with failure, poverty and the destruction of other people’s aspirations.
In a demand letter dated November 12, 2026, advocate Timothy Kilonzo accused the journalist of publishing material that was false, misleading and defamatory.
The lawyers contend that the portrayal went beyond ordinary criticism or political satire, arguing that it was calculated to expose their client to humiliation among his professional colleagues, clients, judicial officers and members of the public.
They further maintain that the phrase attached to the image suggested that Omari was an advocate whose professional services could destroy the prospects, livelihoods and future ambitions of those seeking his assistance.
According to the demand, the publication was particularly damaging because the lawyer’s practice depends substantially on professional integrity, public confidence and the trust of clients.
The legal team argues that associating him with the description “killer of destiny” could undermine the confidence that clients and potential clients place in his ability to represent their interests.
Lawyers accuse journalist of orchestrating reputational attack
In explaining the basis of the complaint, Omari’s legal representatives took issue with both the wording of the publication and the visual presentation used to communicate the message.
They argued that depicting the advocate in ragged clothing while seated on the streets was intended to make him appear impoverished, socially diminished and professionally discredited.
The lawyers further claimed that the imagery was designed to attract ridicule and encourage members of the public to question his professional worth.
They maintained that the publication could create the impression that associating with Omari brought disgrace, financial loss and failure.
In the demand letter, Kilonzo argued that the publication was not an innocent expression of opinion but an attack calculated to damage his client’s professional identity.
The legal team also invoked Article 28 of the Constitution, which guarantees every person’s inherent dignity and the right to have that dignity respected and protected.
Additionally, they cited Article 33(3), which provides that the exercise of freedom of expression must respect the rights and reputation of others.
The lawyers’ position is that freedom of expression, including the freedom to criticise public figures and professionals, should not be used as a justification for publishing material that unlawfully damages another person’s reputation.
Omari wants immediate removal and public apology
Apart from financial compensation, Omari’s lawyers have outlined several conditions they want Agade to fulfil within 24 hours of receiving the demand letter.
They want the journalist to:
- Permanently remove the disputed Facebook publication.
- Delete related photographs, captions, comments, edits, shares and reproductions under his control.
- Publish a full and unconditional public apology on the same Facebook account.
- Issue an unequivocal retraction acknowledging that the allegations concerning Omari were false, misleading and defamatory.
- Pay KSh15 million as compensation for the alleged reputational injury, brand damage and emotional distress.
The lawyers have also insisted that the apology and retraction should receive prominence equivalent to the original publication to ensure that the correction reaches an audience comparable to that exposed to the disputed content.
Kilonzo warned that failure to comply with the demands within the stipulated 24-hour period would leave his client with no option but to institute legal proceedings without further notice.
The demand letter therefore places Agade under pressure to either address the complaint through an agreed settlement or prepare for a possible defamation dispute.
However, the KSh15 million demand remains a claim made by Omari’s legal representatives and is not a court-awarded compensation.
Political dispute surrounding Sifuna’s movement provides context
The controversy has emerged against the backdrop of heightened political activity surrounding the Linda Mwananchi Movement and its leader, Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna.
Omari’s legal team links the disputed publication to his representation of a member of the movement who approached the courts seeking to stop Sifuna’s political outfit from convening its National Delegates Conference.
The conference eventually proceeded on November 13, 2026, after the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal declined to issue orders stopping it.
The political dispute surrounding the conference has attracted considerable attention, particularly following Sifuna’s efforts to establish a new political platform after his fallout with sections of the Orange Democratic Movement.
The legal proceedings also brought attention to disagreements within the political outfit over its internal governance and the process of organising its delegates’ conference.
Against this background, Omari’s complaint raises questions about the relationship between political disagreements, public commentary and the professional reputation of lawyers representing individuals involved in politically sensitive disputes.
His legal team appears to take the position that representing a party in a political dispute should not expose an advocate to personal attacks that undermine professional credibility.Citizen Digital
Omari’s history of defamation disputes
The latest confrontation adds to a series of publicised legal disputes in which Omari has previously sought redress over statements he considers damaging to his reputation.
In February 2026, the High Court at Milimani issued interim orders restraining Kileleshwa Ward MCA Robert Alai from publishing or circulating allegedly defamatory material concerning the lawyer.
The orders followed a suit in which Omari accused Alai of using his Facebook platform to publish derogatory statements questioning his professional integrity and conduct.
Omari argued that the publications had attracted significant engagement, exposing him to public ridicule and potentially affecting relationships with clients and professional associates.
Justice Janet Mulwa granted interim protection pending determination of the substantive defamation dispute.
The ruling was not a final determination of liability in the underlying case. Citizen Digital+1
In another high-profile dispute, Omari pursued a defamation claim against National Assembly Majority Leader Kimani Ichung’wah over remarks published on social media.
He had argued that the legislator’s statements portrayed him negatively and threatened his reputation as an advocate.
The disagreements eventually found their way into court, with the High Court in March 2025 dismissing Ichung’wah’s application seeking to halt the proceedings. Citizen Digital+1
The cases illustrate the growing role of social media in disputes involving public personalities, politicians, journalists and professionals.
They also demonstrate how online publications can become the subject of legal battles when individuals believe that criticism has crossed the boundary into actionable defamation.
The difficult balance between freedom of expression and reputation
The dispute between Omari and Agade raises a wider question about the responsibilities of journalists and digital content creators in an era when social media publications can reach thousands of people within minutes.
Article 33 of the Constitution protects freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and communicate information and ideas.
However, that freedom is not absolute. Article 33(3) specifically requires everyone exercising it to respect the rights and reputation of others.
Kenyan defamation law provides avenues through which individuals can seek remedies where publications are established to contain defamatory statements.
At the same time, public figures and professionals must recognise that criticism, satire and commentary on their conduct are legitimate elements of public debate.
The distinction between legitimate criticism and defamatory publication is ultimately a matter that may require judicial examination, depending on the content, context, meaning and circumstances surrounding the disputed material.
In this case, the central question, should the matter proceed to court, would be whether Agade’s publication crossed that legal threshold and whether Omari can establish the necessary elements of a defamation claim.
The journalist would also have an opportunity to respond to the allegations and raise any available legal defences.
As of the publication of Citizen Digital’s report, there was no reported response from Agade to the demand letter.
A potentially costly legal battle
The KSh15 million demand places the journalist at the centre of a potentially expensive legal confrontation with one of Kenya’s most prominent courtroom advocates.
For Omari, the dispute is about protecting his professional standing and ensuring that his image is not used to undermine public confidence in his legal practice.
For Agade, the demand raises questions about the boundaries of digital journalism, creative expression and the potential legal consequences of publishing content about prominent personalities.
The 24-hour ultimatum could provide an opportunity for an out-of-court settlement if the parties agree on the proposed retraction, apology and compensation.
However, should the journalist reject the demands or fail to comply, Omari’s lawyers have indicated their readiness to pursue the matter through the courts.
About The Author
