In an alarming statement made on 26th June, 2025 (see https://youtu.be/0FQ7x7_HH3g?si=AYkH7PHX046Dw_Bd), Kenya's Cabinet Secretary for Interior and National Administration Kipchumba Murkomen reportedly instructed police officers to shoot at anyone appearing near a police station. This utterance - authoritarian in tone, unconstitutional in spirit, and criminal in effect - marks a dark moment in Kenya’s democratic journey. It evokes memories of repressive regimes and colonial brutality, not the conduct of a Cabinet Secretary sworn to uphold the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
The implications of such a pronouncement go beyond the immediate danger it poses to innocent citizens. It threatens to unravel the constitutional fabric that binds our democracy -the rule of law, the sanctity of life, the presumption of innocence, and due process.
The Constitutional Violations: A Systemic Breakdown of the Rule of Law
1. Right to Life (Article 26, Constitution of Kenya, 2010)
Murkomen's statement amounts to a direct incitement to extrajudicial killings, in flagrant violation of Article 26(1) of the Constitution which states:
"Every person has the right to life."
Moreover, Article 26(3) provides that a person shall not be deprived of life intentionally, except to the extent authorized by law.
Kenyan law permits the use of lethal force by police officers only under extremely limited circumstances - primarily to protect life, not to arbitrarily take it. A person merely “appearing” near a police station does not present a lethal threat warranting a death sentence without trial.
2. Right to Fair Trial (Article 50)
Kenya’s criminal justice system is anchored on the principle that every accused person is innocent until proven guilty. Article 50(2)(a) guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing before a court of law.
Murkomen’s remarks pre-empt this process by:
- Assuming guilt without investigation,
- Encouraging instant punishment (death),
- Circumventing the courts and due process.
This is not just unconstitutional- it is state-sponsored vigilantism.
3. Right to Dignity and Freedom from Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (Article 28 and 29)
To command law enforcement officers to summarily shoot individuals on mere suspicion is a directive rooted in cruelty and impunity. It disregards:
- Human dignity (Article 28);
- Freedom from torture (Article 29(f));
- Protection from all forms of violence from public or private sources (Article 29(c)).
This section provides that a police officer may use force only when non-violent means are ineffective or without promise of achieving the intended result. Firearms may be used only as a last resort, in situations such as:
- Self-defense or defense of others against imminent threat of death or serious injury;
- Preventing a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life; and
- Arresting a person presenting such a threat.
Merely "appearing near a police station" does not satisfy any of these legal thresholds.
United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990)
As a signatory to international human rights treaties, Kenya is bound by international standards. Principle 9 of the UN Basic Principles explicitly states:
"Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury..."
Murkomen’s directive is an affront to Kenya’s international obligations under the UN Charter and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Incitement to Commit a Crime: Criminal Responsibility Under the Penal Code
Section 96 of the Penal Code: Incitement to Violence
"Any person who utters, prints or publishes any words... indicating or implying that it is or might be desirable to do or omit to do any act the doing or omission of which is calculated to lead to physical injury to any person or to any class, community or body of persons is guilty of an offence..."
Murkomen’s utterances may be construed as incitement to commit a felony (murder), and thus criminal in themselves.
Public Officials and the Burden of Restraint
It is not enough to dismiss Murkomen’s statement as political hyperbole. A Cabinet Secretary is not a talk-show pundit. The words of a senior state officer carry the force of policy, influence operational conduct, and may result in irreversible harm.
Kenya is still reeling from the wounds of police brutality, from the 2007–08 post-election violence, to the 2020 Githurai shootings, and most recently, the violent quelling of 2023 anti-tax protests. Giving security officers a blank cheque to shoot on sight is a recipe for mass atrocities and state terror.
What Next? The Case for Legal Accountability and Public Resistance
Murkomen must not be allowed to cloak his illegal pronouncement in political populism or “national security” rhetoric. He must be:
- Compelled to retract the statement publicly and unequivocally;
- Investigated by the National Police Oversight Authority (IPOA) for promoting unlawful use of force;
- Held personally liable for any injuries or deaths that arise from his directive;
- Censured by Parliament, which is obligated under Article 95 to exercise oversight over the national executive.
What Murkomen has suggested is state-sanctioned extrajudicial execution, plain and simple. If left unchallenged, it will normalize an era where proximity to authority is treated as guilt, and suspicion as justification for death. This is the very antithesis of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
Let us be clear: this is not about security - it is about tyranny in uniform. And the moment to resist it is now.
© 2025 | For inquiries, republication rights, or legal citations, contact Institute for Policy & Diplomacy at instituteforpolicyanddiplomacy@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment