Kenya High Court: IG Kanja Sentencing for Nairobi Police Barricades

• Inspector General Douglas Kanja has been found in contempt of court by the High Court.
• The ruling stems from the police's failure to provide advance public notice before erecting roadblocks in Nairobi, violating a prior court order.
• Justice Patricia Nyaundi emphasized that internal police procedures do not supersede binding court directives, holding Kanja personally responsible.
• Kanja is scheduled to appear before the High Court on September 28, 2026, for mitigation and sentencing.
• The case highlights constitutional rights to freedom of movement and peaceful assembly, alongside police obligations for transparency and accountability.

Justice Nyaundi underscored that internal police procedures cannot supersede a binding court order, affirming the Inspector General's personal responsibility for ensuring compliance by officers under his command.

Kenya's High Court has found Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja in contempt of court, a significant development stemming from the police's failure to adhere to judicial directives concerning public advisories for roadblocks. Justice Patricia Nyaundi delivered the ruling on September 17, determining that IG Kanja did not ensure compliance with conservatory orders previously issued by Justice Lawrence Mugambi on July 9, 2025. This finding mandates Kanja's appearance before the High Court on September 28, 2026, for mitigation and subsequent sentencing, marking a critical moment for police accountability in Kenya.

The contempt proceedings were initiated after police erected numerous barricades and roadblocks on major thoroughfares leading into Nairobi's Central Business District. These actions occurred during events commemorating the anniversary of the 2024 Finance Bill protests. The Katiba Institute challenged these police roadblocks, asserting that they were established without the required advance public advisories, directly contravening the existing court order. The restrictions significantly impacted motorists, workers, and other members of the public, particularly on key routes such as Thika Road, Mombasa Road, and Waiyaki Way, on June 25, 2026.

In her comprehensive Justice Patricia Nyaundi ruling, the judge clarified that the case extended beyond merely the constitutional right to peaceful assembly, enshrined in Article 37. She explicitly linked the police's actions to the fundamental freedom of movement, guaranteed under Article 39 of the Constitution. Furthermore, Justice Nyaundi highlighted the police's overarching obligations under Articles 10 and 244, which mandate adherence to the rule of law, respect for human rights, transparency, and accountability in all their operations.

Justice Nyaundi underscored that internal police procedures cannot supersede a binding court order, affirming the Inspector General's personal responsibility for ensuring compliance by officers under his command. The court's decision reinforced that the Inspector General, Douglas Kanja, bears ultimate responsibility for the conduct of the police force, particularly in upholding judicial directives. The Katiba Institute had previously sought to hold Kanja personally accountable for the alleged breach of these orders, arguing that the restrictions not only impeded freedom of movement but could also hinder access to essential services for citizens.

This ruling establishes a significant precedent for holding senior government officials, like the Inspector General, personally accountable for non-compliance with court orders, particularly those affecting fundamental rights like freedom of movement. Lawyers should advise clients on the increased enforceability of court orders against state actors and the potential for contempt proceedings in cases of official disregard, reinforcing the rule of law. The decision has been met with mixed reactions regarding its broader implications for governance.

Nora Mbagathi, Executive Director of the Katiba Institute, welcomed the ruling but expressed concern over what she described as an increasing necessity to resort to contempt proceedings to compel government institutions to obey court decisions. She emphasized that while the outcome was positive, the growing reliance on such applications to secure compliance with judicial decisions is problematic in a nation that should inherently be governed by constitutionalism and the rule of law. Conversely, Hussein Khalid, Executive Director of VOCAL Africa and a witness in the case, lauded the ruling, stating that it significantly strengthens accountability and the ongoing fight against impunity within both the police force and government institutions.

This ruling establishes a significant precedent for holding senior government officials, like the Inspector General, personally accountable for non-compliance with court orders, particularly those affecting fundamental rights like freedom of movement. Lawyers should advise clients on the increased enforceability of court orders against state actors and the potential for contempt proceedings in cases of official disregard, reinforcing the rule of law.

Source: Original reporting via news reports