NAIROBI, Kenya — Peter Maingi Kimani, popularly known as Menelik Kimani on TikTok, has been released days after his arrest over a viral video in which he challenged President William Ruto and called for a battlefield-style confrontation.
The TikToker was arrested by officers from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) on February 26 in the Gachage area, Kiganjo, Gatundu South Sub-County. Detectives alleged that he had gone into hiding after posting the clip earlier in the week.
Kimani resurfaced online on Sunday through a new TikTok account, confirming that he was released on February 27 but that police had confiscated his mobile phone.
“Hey guys, it’s Menelik Kimani. I was arrested on Thursday and released on Friday. I am home and okay. The main problem is my phone is being withheld by the police, but I have a new account, so kindly follow it,” he said in the video.
Legal Questions Over Phone Seizure
Activist Mwabili Mwagodi later confirmed visiting Kimani at his parents’ home in Cura village, Kiganjo, stating that the TikToker had secured legal representation.
“He was released on Friday at 4:00 pm. We have gotten him an advocate, and he is speaking with the advocate,” Mwagodi said.
He questioned the legality of the phone seizure, arguing that law enforcement officers require judicial authorisation to confiscate personal electronic devices.
“The only time DCI is supposed to take your phone is when it is ordered by a magistrate or a judge,” he said.
Under Article 31 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, every person has the right to privacy, including protection against unnecessary search and seizure of property. However, law enforcement agencies may obtain court orders to access electronic devices where investigations involve potential criminal conduct.
Free Speech vs Security Debate
Kimani’s arrest sparked mixed reactions online. Some Kenyans criticised authorities for pursuing a social media user over political speech, citing Article 33 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression.
Others argued that the content of the video crossed legal boundaries, noting that freedom of expression does not extend to incitement, hate speech or threats of violence.
The Penal Code and the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act criminalise certain forms of threatening communication, particularly where they may endanger public order or national security.
