NAIROBI, Kenya – A growing chorus of legal experts, former Chief Justices, and lawmakers has accused Kenya’s Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Renson Ingonga, of weaponising anti-terrorism laws to silence peaceful demonstrators — a move they say threatens civil liberties and undermines the rule of law.
The criticism follows the charging of nearly 200 Gen-Z protesters under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) — legislation originally intended to combat violent extremism by terror groups such as Al-Shabaab and ISIS.
The Law Society of Kenya (LSK), led by President Faith Odhiambo, announced plans to file a High Court petition to challenge the use of POTA against demonstrators, describing the charges as “trumped-up, excessive, and unconstitutional.”
“Since last year, we have seen a spike in fabricated charges, minors being detained beyond 24 hours, and others locked up with adults. Many of these charges don’t meet the threshold for prosecution but are being used to keep protesters behind bars,” Odhiambo said.
She also raised concerns over courts being “forum-shopped” to impose steep bail and bond terms based on exaggerated charges, warning that such tactics amount to judicial intimidation.
“We are giving the Judiciary the benefit of doubt, but we urge magistrates to resist being used as tools of oppression. Some have issued fair bail — Sh1,000, Sh5,000 — while others are imposing unreasonably high conditions,” Odhiambo added.
“You’re Calling Your Own Citizens Terrorists”
Gatanga MP and lawyer Edward Muriu sharply criticized the State’s approach, likening it to “killing a fly with a sledgehammer.”
“We now have almost 200 young Kenyans — Gen-Zs — charged with terrorism. When citizens exercising their rights under Article 37 of the Constitution are labelled terrorists, you may silence them temporarily, but you also tell the world that Kenya is a country of terrorists. Investors flee, and so do tourists,” Muriu warned.
A Law Meant for Al-Shabaab, Not Protests
According to LSK Deputy President Mwaura Kabata, the charges are legally unsound.
“POTA was never meant for Kenyan protesters. It targets global terror threats, not youth protesting poor governance,” Kabata said.
He pointed out that the Penal Code already provides appropriate legal tools for dealing with crimes like arson or property destruction.
For instance, setting fire to a police station can be prosecuted under Section 339 (destruction of property) or Section 332 (arson).
“But instead of using these, the State has opted for POTA to inflate the severity of the cases, deny bail, and generate fear. That’s abuse of office,” he said.
Kabata further cited Section 2 of POTA, which explicitly exempts public protests and demonstrations from its scope.
Judiciary as a Political Weapon?
Former Chief Justice David Maraga joined the chorus, accusing the government of using the justice system to punish political dissent.
“Ruto’s administration is weaponising the criminal justice system to terrorise arrested youth and their families. The reckless use of POTA and ATPU violates the freedoms of assembly, expression, and the right to fair bail,” Maraga said.
Senior lawyer Paul Muite echoed those sentiments, warning that judicial officers must not allow themselves to be seen as “an extension of the executive.”
“Magistrates must apply Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution, which guarantees reasonable bail. Using POTA to deny bail for politically motivated charges is unconstitutional,” Muite said.
Gachagua Allies Also Targeted
Among those charged under POTA are former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua’s close allies, Peter Kinyanjui and Wanjiku Thiga, who are accused of orchestrating a “coordinated terror attack” on several government buildings in Kikuyu, including the law courts, sub-county offices, and a police post.
Court charge sheets seen by Y News show that while some suspects face alternate charges under the Penal Code, many were directly slapped with terrorism counts.
The LSK has vowed to challenge the legality of using anti-terror laws against protesters and push for reforms to prevent abuse of the law for political ends.
“The courts must step in to restore sanity. What we are witnessing is not just abuse of the court process — it is extreme abuse of power,” Kabata said.
