Published on April 30, 2025 by Agencies for Kenya Online News
Last Updated on 1 year by Agencies for Kenya Online News
High Court Judge Bahati Mwamuye made the judgement in a case was filed by eleven protesters, represented by Pareno Solonka of Solonka & Solonka Advocates LLP, against Attorney General, Inspector General of Police, and Bungei.
The Court found the ban to be a violation of the Constitution, specifically infringing on the rights to peaceful assembly, freedom of expression, human dignity, protection from arbitrary arrest, and due process, as enshrined under Articles 27, 28, 29, 33, 37, 49, and 244 of the Kenyan Constitution.
At the center of the case was a media alert issued by Bungei on June 18, 2024, where he declared a ban on protests and public assemblies within Nairobi’s Central Business District (CBD).
Justice Mwamuye ruled that the police had acted ultra vires—beyond their legal powers—and emphasized that peaceful protest is a fundamental right in a democratic society.
In a strong condemnation of the authorities’ actions, the Court awarded a Ksh. 2.2 million in general and exemplary damages to the 11 petitioners, granting each Ksh. 100,000 as compensation for the violation of their constitutional rights.
In the case, the 11 petitioners argued that during the protests the police used excessive force on participants, including by beating them with batons, lobbing teargas at them, and spraying them with water canons.
“The Respondents beat, clobbered, maimed and tortured persons participating in the peaceful march, and in the process also treated them in a cruel, inhuman or degrading manner.,” they argued
They further told the court that respondents illegally used live bullets on unarmed and peaceful persons
participating in the peaceful demonstration.
Petitioners averred that they were illegally and indiscriminately arrested by the police under the direct orders of the inspector general of police , Bungei while participating in the peaceful march.
They submitted that they were never informed of the reasons for the arrest and were also never granted the right to communicate with the advocate of their choice or any other person.
“Despite the 3rd Respondent being fully cognizant of the intended peaceful march, he issued an arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional press release to Media Newsrooms stating that he had banned any demonstration. This resulted in police officers engaging in the use of excessive and disproportionate use of force against persons participating in the peaceful march,” they argued.
They urged the court to order the police to compensate them for the violations of their rights.
