High Court Dismisses Petition to Halt Interior CS Murkomen’s Controversial Directive
Quote from Lawyer on July 31, 2025, 9:54 amThe High Court in Nairobi rejected a petition filed by civil society organizations, including the Katiba Institute and the Kenya Human Rights Commission, seeking to declare Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen unfit to hold public office. The petition challenged Murkomen’s controversial “shoot-to-kill” directive issued during anti-government protests in June 2025, which critics argued incited unlawful violence and violated constitutional protections.
The petition stemmed from remarks made by Murkomen on June 26, 2025, following a wave of protests that saw significant unrest, including attacks on police stations and public infrastructure. Addressing a public gathering in Kikuyu Town, Kiambu County, Murkomen instructed police officers to use lethal force against individuals approaching police stations, citing provisions of the National Police Service Act. He further stated that the government would provide legal support to officers facing prosecution for such actions, sparking widespread condemnation from human rights groups, opposition leaders, and legal associations.
The Mount Kenya Lawyers Association, among others, argued that Murkomen’s statements constituted a direct order to police to engage in extrajudicial killings, undermining the rule of law and violating Articles 10, 33, and 245 of the Kenyan Constitution. These articles emphasize ethical conduct, freedom of expression, and the independence of the National Police Service, respectively. The petitioners sought a court declaration to bar Murkomen from public office and compel him to retract his remarks publicly through televised statements and newspaper notices at his own expense.
Justice Lawrence Mugambi, presiding over the case at the Milimani High Court, dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that Murkomen’s statements directly violated the Constitution or warranted his removal from office. The judge noted that while the remarks were controversial, they were framed within the context of the National Police Service Act, which permits the use of force under specific circumstances, such as self-defense or preventing imminent harm. The court found no conclusive evidence that Murkomen’s directive explicitly ordered unlawful killings or overstepped his authority as Interior Cabinet Secretary.
The ruling also highlighted that Murkomen had issued subsequent clarifications, emphasizing that police should use force only within legal limits. On July 18, 2025, the Interior Ministry released a policy directive outlining stricter guidelines for the use of firearms, stating that officers may discharge weapons only when there is a clear threat to life or serious injury and no alternative means are available. The court viewed these clarifications as aligning with existing legal frameworks, weakening the petitioners’ claims of incitement.
The decision drew mixed reactions from various stakeholders. Civil society groups expressed disappointment, arguing that the court missed an opportunity to hold public officials accountable for statements that could escalate tensions during protests. A spokesperson for the Katiba Institute stated that the ruling risks emboldening officials to issue reckless directives without fear of legal repercussions. They vowed to explore further legal avenues, including an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Opposition leaders, including former Prime Minister Raila Odinga and former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, reiterated their criticism of Murkomen, accusing him of undermining constitutional protections and endangering public safety. They called for renewed efforts to push for his impeachment, though they acknowledged challenges due to political dynamics in Parliament.
On the other hand, government supporters defended the ruling, arguing that Murkomen’s statements were taken out of context and were intended to protect public institutions during a period of heightened unrest. A Ministry of Interior official emphasized that the protests, particularly on June 25, 2025, resulted in significant damage, including the burning of police stations and courts, justifying the need for strong security measures.
The protests that prompted Murkomen’s directive were part of a broader wave of anti-government demonstrations led largely by Kenya’s Gen Z population. Sparked by opposition to the Finance Bill 2024, the protests escalated into widespread unrest, with reports of looting, arson, and clashes with police. According to official figures, the June and July 2025 protests left 42 people dead and over 600 injured, with Nairobi recording the highest number of casualties.
The Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) has faced challenges in investigating alleged police misconduct during these protests, citing non-cooperation from senior police commanders. IPOA’s reports have blamed police for excessive force, while Murkomen has defended officers, arguing that they faced significant threats from armed protesters wielding petrol bombs and other weapons.
The court’s rejection of the petition marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over police conduct and the role of public officials in managing civil unrest. Critics argue that the ruling could embolden the government to adopt hardline approaches to protests, potentially escalating tensions in a country already grappling with political and economic challenges. Human rights advocates have called for dialogue to address the root causes of the protests, warning that heavy-handed responses could further alienate the youth and erode public trust in institutions.
Murkomen, for his part, has maintained that his comments were misinterpreted and that his primary goal is to ensure national security while upholding the law. In a recent statement, he urged the IPOA to conduct thorough investigations into protest-related incidents rather than making premature judgments, emphasizing the need to balance accountability with the protection of law enforcement officers.
As Kenya navigates this turbulent period, the debate over Murkomen’s directive and the broader issue of police reform remains unresolved. With planned protests looming and calls for accountability growing louder, the government faces increasing pressure to address public grievances while maintaining order.
The High Court in Nairobi rejected a petition filed by civil society organizations, including the Katiba Institute and the Kenya Human Rights Commission, seeking to declare Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen unfit to hold public office. The petition challenged Murkomen’s controversial “shoot-to-kill” directive issued during anti-government protests in June 2025, which critics argued incited unlawful violence and violated constitutional protections.
The petition stemmed from remarks made by Murkomen on June 26, 2025, following a wave of protests that saw significant unrest, including attacks on police stations and public infrastructure. Addressing a public gathering in Kikuyu Town, Kiambu County, Murkomen instructed police officers to use lethal force against individuals approaching police stations, citing provisions of the National Police Service Act. He further stated that the government would provide legal support to officers facing prosecution for such actions, sparking widespread condemnation from human rights groups, opposition leaders, and legal associations.
The Mount Kenya Lawyers Association, among others, argued that Murkomen’s statements constituted a direct order to police to engage in extrajudicial killings, undermining the rule of law and violating Articles 10, 33, and 245 of the Kenyan Constitution. These articles emphasize ethical conduct, freedom of expression, and the independence of the National Police Service, respectively. The petitioners sought a court declaration to bar Murkomen from public office and compel him to retract his remarks publicly through televised statements and newspaper notices at his own expense.
Justice Lawrence Mugambi, presiding over the case at the Milimani High Court, dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that Murkomen’s statements directly violated the Constitution or warranted his removal from office. The judge noted that while the remarks were controversial, they were framed within the context of the National Police Service Act, which permits the use of force under specific circumstances, such as self-defense or preventing imminent harm. The court found no conclusive evidence that Murkomen’s directive explicitly ordered unlawful killings or overstepped his authority as Interior Cabinet Secretary.
The ruling also highlighted that Murkomen had issued subsequent clarifications, emphasizing that police should use force only within legal limits. On July 18, 2025, the Interior Ministry released a policy directive outlining stricter guidelines for the use of firearms, stating that officers may discharge weapons only when there is a clear threat to life or serious injury and no alternative means are available. The court viewed these clarifications as aligning with existing legal frameworks, weakening the petitioners’ claims of incitement.
The decision drew mixed reactions from various stakeholders. Civil society groups expressed disappointment, arguing that the court missed an opportunity to hold public officials accountable for statements that could escalate tensions during protests. A spokesperson for the Katiba Institute stated that the ruling risks emboldening officials to issue reckless directives without fear of legal repercussions. They vowed to explore further legal avenues, including an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Opposition leaders, including former Prime Minister Raila Odinga and former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, reiterated their criticism of Murkomen, accusing him of undermining constitutional protections and endangering public safety. They called for renewed efforts to push for his impeachment, though they acknowledged challenges due to political dynamics in Parliament.
On the other hand, government supporters defended the ruling, arguing that Murkomen’s statements were taken out of context and were intended to protect public institutions during a period of heightened unrest. A Ministry of Interior official emphasized that the protests, particularly on June 25, 2025, resulted in significant damage, including the burning of police stations and courts, justifying the need for strong security measures.
The protests that prompted Murkomen’s directive were part of a broader wave of anti-government demonstrations led largely by Kenya’s Gen Z population. Sparked by opposition to the Finance Bill 2024, the protests escalated into widespread unrest, with reports of looting, arson, and clashes with police. According to official figures, the June and July 2025 protests left 42 people dead and over 600 injured, with Nairobi recording the highest number of casualties.
The Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) has faced challenges in investigating alleged police misconduct during these protests, citing non-cooperation from senior police commanders. IPOA’s reports have blamed police for excessive force, while Murkomen has defended officers, arguing that they faced significant threats from armed protesters wielding petrol bombs and other weapons.
The court’s rejection of the petition marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over police conduct and the role of public officials in managing civil unrest. Critics argue that the ruling could embolden the government to adopt hardline approaches to protests, potentially escalating tensions in a country already grappling with political and economic challenges. Human rights advocates have called for dialogue to address the root causes of the protests, warning that heavy-handed responses could further alienate the youth and erode public trust in institutions.
Murkomen, for his part, has maintained that his comments were misinterpreted and that his primary goal is to ensure national security while upholding the law. In a recent statement, he urged the IPOA to conduct thorough investigations into protest-related incidents rather than making premature judgments, emphasizing the need to balance accountability with the protection of law enforcement officers.
As Kenya navigates this turbulent period, the debate over Murkomen’s directive and the broader issue of police reform remains unresolved. With planned protests looming and calls for accountability growing louder, the government faces increasing pressure to address public grievances while maintaining order.