The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) expresses profound concern over the regime's proposal to establish a digital intelligence unit to monitor online activity, as contained in the annual report on the state of national security (2024–2025), tabled in Parliament by Mr. William Ruto.
National security, which encompasses protection against internal and external threats to Kenya’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, as well as the rights, freedoms, property, and other national interests of its people, is promoted and guaranteed in accordance with the Constitution, as outlined in Article 238. Critical to this is sub-article (2)(b) of 238, which declares that national security shall be pursued in compliance with utmost respect for the rule of law, democracy, human rights, and fundamental freedoms.
Consequently, the proposed digital intelligence unit, as presently conceived, raises grave governance and justice concerns about the standardization of mass digital surveillance and the erosion of fundamental rights, particularly at a politically sensitive moment as the country approaches the 2027 general elections.
This nefarious proposal comes in the midst of the deepening political and digital repression in the country and the region. The latest report by CIVICUS, which KHRC and the Civic Freedoms Forum (CFF) supported, presents an unfortunate situation of repressed civic space. Many punitive and prohibitive policies have been implemented since 2013 (when Ruto became the deputy president under Uhuru Kenyatta), including the Security Amendment Bills of 2014, the National Integrated Management System (NIIMS), popularly known as Huduma Namba, and the planned Device Management System (DMS) for mobile networks, among others.
The latest was the enactment of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2024, which significantly expanded the regime's powers to block online content and compel compliance by internet service providers. KHRC, alongside other petitioners, has successfully challenged these before the courts for violating the Constitution, including Articles 31 (right to privacy), 33 (freedom of expression), 36 (right to association), and 37 (right to assembly).
The regime's abuse of digital surveillance and policing was at its worst during the 2024 Gen Z-led protests, which saw many young people tracked, captured, and subjected to unprecedented atrocities. According to the regime’s own report, 42 civilians were killed, hundreds were injured, and over 1,700 people were arrested -- although these figures have been deliberately and vastly underreported to downplay the magnitude of the violations. This has also deepened transnational repression.
Thus, the regime’s framing of social media as a driver of “lawlessness” and a tool for protest mobilization risks criminalizing dissent and peaceful civic engagement. These fundamental rights and freedoms are expressly safeguarded under the Constitution and the international treaties, and the regime has no power to rescind them whatsoever.
Key legal and human rights concerns
The proposed Digital Intelligence Unit lacks clarity on the nature, scope, and limits of data collection. Any system that enables the monitoring of online communications without prior judicial authorization, necessity, proportionality, and independent oversight constitutes unconstitutional surveillance. We cannot afford to have unfettered access to our data.
Digital spaces have become central to democratic participation, political organizing, journalism, and human rights advocacy. Treating online mobilization as a security threat undermines the rights the Constitution was designed to protect. In a context where journalists, activists, and human rights defenders have increasingly faced harassment, arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial violence, expanded digital surveillance powers create a heightened risk of profiling, intimidation, and political targeting.
Based on the above, KHRC firmly rejects the establishment of this unit, and we commit to challenging it in all policy and civic spaces. Comparative experience shows that while some democratic states address cybercrime through narrowly tailored and legally constrained mechanisms, unchecked digital surveillance is characteristic of authoritarian regimes and hybrid democracies where technology is used to suppress dissent and entrench political power. Kenya must not follow this path.
The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) registers its deep concern and outrage at the violence, loss of life, and arbitrary arrests that occurred during the public participation session on the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) Report for the proposed Ikolomani Gold Mine by Shanta Gold on 4th December 2025. What should have been a lawful, peaceful, and inclusive civic process degenerated into intimidation, chaos, and impunity targeting citizens whose only intention was to demand respect for their rights and freedoms.
This incident is part of a disturbing and escalating pattern in Kenya’s extractive sector, where communities seeking accountability are met with brutal force, political threats, and procedural manipulation. Mining zones are increasingly becoming death traps rather than engines of community development. We continue seeing State and corporate repression been normalized in curtailing civic freedoms when expressing dissent against punitive and anti-people decisions. This must stop. In this regard, we wish to submit the following concerns and recommendations: -
The regime in office together with its corporate accomplices have adopted an unconstitutional and oppressive notion that minerals belong to the government for exploitation at whims. This is the warped and misconceived understanding that is creating the effrontery that people have no say in the exploration and exploitation of minerals.
We wish to take this opportunity to affirm that the sovereignty of the people as proclaimed in Article 1 of the constitution applies in all spheres of governance including natural resource sector. This means that the people retain the ultimate authority and the right to self-determination in all processes involving public resources and interests.
This is further affirmed by the provisions of Chapter 5 on Land and Environment in the constitution (where land is defined to comprehensively include natural resources[1]) in Article 61(1) that: “All land belongs to the people of Kenya collectively as a nation, as communities and individuals”. Notably, the government is not listed as an owner but functions only as a trustee and administrator on behalf of the people.
It is therefore time for the regime to understand that it has no monopoly over decisions concerning the management of extractives and other land-based resources. Such decisions cannot lawfully or morally proceed without Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) from the people, who remain the ultimate owners and rights-holders.
Active and meaningful civic engagements and accrual of benefits thereof is one of the best mechanisms of realizing the aforementioned sovereignty in resources governance. To this end, we want to remind the government and Shanta Gold that public participation is a constitutional right under Articles 10[2], 35[3], 42[4], 69[5], and 70[6] of the Constitution of Kenya. It is also a core element of environmental democracy under Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA)[7] and the Environmental Impact Assessmentm(EIA)[8] Regulations.
The violent disruption of a lawful public forum, the reported deaths, and the arbitrary arrests of residents represent a gross and unacceptable violation of the rights to life, human dignity, peaceful assembly, expression, and access to information. This is inimical to our constitutional, policy and international human rights obligations.
KHRC condemns, in the strongest possible terms these injustices geared towards silencing legal and legitimate community concerns. Requisite state and civic institutions must urgently come in to ensure the protection of the land, resources and environmental justice defenders in this space.
We also call upon the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) to exercise its constitutional obligations under Article 59(1)(e)[9] to independently investigate these and ensure that the perpetrators held to account. The Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) should also step in.
KHRC notes with grave concern that the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) has become increasingly unresponsive to public objections and community memoranda on extractive projects across the country. Despite serious concerns tabled by residents of Ikolomani including concerns over livelihood risks, displacement, and environmental impacts NEMA failed to ensure a secure, dignified, and transparent public participation process. This failure raises a fundamental question of Whose interests does NEMA serve?
Its recent conduct signals a worrying departure from its statutory and constitutional mandate as an independent environmental regulator. Undoubtedly, and as evidenced across several mining regions, NEMA has become the weakest link in environmental governance and the biggest institutional betrayal of communities living in mining zones.
In Kambe Ribe, Kilifi County, for example, the persistent cries of community members regarding the abuse of ESIA processes and the severe pollution of air, water, and the surrounding environment by Simba Cement have repeatedly fallen on deaf ears. Despite numerous attempts by residents to seek NEMA’s intervention, the agency has remained silent and inactive, allowing impunity to thrive at the expense of public health, environmental integrity, and constitutional rights.
KHRC demands that NEMA: -
Further, KHRC calls upon the Joint Parliamentary Committee on lands, natural resources, minerals, forests, and environment to exercise its oversight mandate over NEMA and ensure that the agency faithfully implements its constitutional and statutory obligations in this matter.
One of the central issues at stake is the fear among Artisanal and Small-scale Miners (ASM) that the entry of Shanta Gold will erase their livelihoods and criminalise their long-standing economic activities.
ASM supports thousands of families in Kakamega and surrounding regions. Yet they have been excluded from critical consultations, and no transition or inclusion plan has been presented. This disregard violates their rights, disrupts local economies, and undermines national development frameworks that promote formalisation and support of ASM.
As per the Mining Act of 2016[10], ASMs are not illegal actors, they are rights-holders whose livelihoods must be protected, respected, and integrated into Kenya’s mineral development agenda.A study on the status of the Artisanal and Small Scale Miners is critical. Such would deepen public understanding of their needs and impact.
Residents around the proposed mining areas fear arbitrary displacement, loss of ancestral land, and disruption of cultural and social systems yet no clear, rights-based resettlement or compensation framework has been communicated.
This is a gross affront to the Constitution of Kenya, the National Land Policy, the Land Act, the National Land Commission Act, and international human rights standards including the UN Guidelines on Forced Evictions, the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), and the Right to Remedy
It is high time Kenya upheld these and adopted a comprehensive national policy on resettlement and compensation, anchored in human rights, FPIC, and constitutional guarantees, to prevent such recurring violations.
No project should proceed where communities are threatened with eviction or forced to accept projects under coercive or opaque circumstances.
We also call upon the KNCHR, Office of the Attorney General and Parliament to ensure the enforcement of these.
The crisis unfolding in Ikolomani mirrors the same human rights violations reported in Ramula, Siaya County, and Mwibona, Vihiga County where Shanta Gold is associated with similar irregularities, lack of transparency, and procedural breaches. In both areas: -
This raises serious questions about the integrity of Kenya’s ESIA and licensing processes and the increasing misuse of state security to silence community voices. KHRC reminds all state agencies that no mining licence overrides community rights. Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is not optional but rather it is a binding legal and ethical requirement.
We therefore call upon the Government of Kenya to: -
Again we urge KNCHR and parliament to monitor and oversight these.
The situation described above is a direct consequence of deepening corporate capture where private companies, through their proximity and influence within State structures, are allowed to operate with impunity and outside the bounds of accountability. This pattern is not isolated to Ikolomani, Ramula, or Mwibona; it mirrors what communities in Kambe Ribe, Kilifi County, continue to experience, where Simba Cement has operated with similar disregard for the law, community rights, and environmental safeguards.
We therefore demand that, as the project proponent, Shanta Gold must fully comply with the Constitution of Kenya, all applicable national policies and laws, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, relevant regional and international treaties, the African Mining Vision, and Kenya’s National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights
Failure to conduct proper human rights due diligence and failure to prevent harm is unacceptable, irresponsible, and unlawful and should be exposed and challenged accordingly.
KHRC stands firmly with the people of Ikolomani, Ramula, Mwibona, and all communities where mining activities are resisted due to abusive and exploitative extractive practices.We will continue to:-
As an organization committed to the protection of human rights and the rule of law, we reiterate that no Kenyan should be violated for participating in a public forum, no miner should lose their livelihood without due process, and no community should be intimidated for demanding transparency and justice.If Kenya’s extractive sector is to contribute meaningfully to national development, it cannot be built on fear, coercion, or the suppression of rights. It must be grounded in accountability, community consent, and the highest standards of human rights. This can only be realised when we respect and uphold our national and international obligations on governance, environmental protection, and human rights.
A genuine appreciation of the inviolable rights and sovereign power of the people especially in decisions affecting land and natural resources is indispensable. It is imperative for the State to remember at the onset, that it is not the owner of these resources. It is merely a trustee, mandated to act in the best interests of the people and the nation. KHRC will continue to stand guard to ensure that the Constitution is upheld to the letter and that the rights of communities are never sacrificed in the name of development.
[1] Under Article 260 on Interpretation: Land includes among others: “natural resources completely contained on or under the earth surface”. Natural resources are also defined to include mineral, forests etc
[2] Constitution of Kenya, Article 10 ;National values and principles of governance, including participation of the people, transparency, and accountability
[3] Constitution of Kenya, Article 35 ;Right of access to information held by the State and by another person required for the exercise or protection of a right
[4] Constitution of Kenya, Article 42 ;Right to a clean and healthy environment, including the right to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations.
[5] Constitution of Kenya, Article 69 ;Obligations of the State regarding sustainable exploitation, utilisation, management, and conservation of the environment and natural resources, including public participation in related decision-making processes.
[6] Constitution of Kenya, Article 70 ;Enforcement of environmental rights, including the right to seek court redress where these rights or obligations are violated.
[7] Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA), No. 8 of 1999 (Revised Edition 2015), Sections 3, 58–60 which establish environmental rights, require EIAs for projects, and mandate public participation in environmental decision-making.
[8] Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 ;Regulations 7, 9, 16, 21, and 22, which outline the requirement for public participation, disclosure, stakeholder consultations, and community engagement during the EIA process.
[9] Constitution of Kenya, Article 59(1)(e) — Mandates the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights to investigate complaints of human rights violations and to take steps to secure appropriate redress where human rights have been violated.
[10] Mining Act, No. 12 of 2016 — Sections 2 and 4 define artisanal mining as a lawful category of mineral operations; Sections 95–99 establish the Artisanal Mining Permit and outline rights, obligations, and protections for ASM; Section 193 requires the State to promote equitable, transparent and sustainable development of mineral resources, including livelihood considerations.
KHRC welcomes the December 4, 2025, decision by the Kerugoya High Court, which has invalidated William Ruto’s unlawful appointment of a panel to compensate victims of police excesses during protests.
The court affirmed our long-standing position published on August 21, 2025, that the mandate to document, investigate, and facilitate redress for victims of state violence squarely lies with the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR), as provided for in Article 59(1) of the Constitution and the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights Act (2011).
KNCHR is mandated to, among others, “receive and investigate complaints about alleged abuses of human rights and take steps to secure appropriate redress where human rights have been violated”.
The unprecedented decision goes further to uphold constitutionalism and respect for human rights and tame the endless culture of executive overreach and impunity that has been undermining the operations of constitutional commissions and independent offices.
The ruling also reminds us that while we advance the best transitional justice mechanisms for the victims and our people, we must remain patient and sober lest we become hopeless and accept anything that comes from the violators.
This determination should also serve as a governance lesson to the regime in power, demonstrating that presidential authoritarianism, as perfected by the post-independence and pre-2010 constitution regimes, has no place in our political democracy and dispensation.
As indicated in our earlier statement, this profoundly unlawful panel reporting to the presidency and composed of deep state operatives responsible for the atrocities in question was a political tactic to derail justice and hoodwink victims and society at large.
The result was going to be either a whitewash or a cover-up. There is no way for an alleged perpetrator to set up a mechanism to investigate their own culpability. It is the reason other truth-telling and justice-seeking initiatives led by the former executives have failed.
For this reason, Kenyans, as well as the rest of the world, must learn from the Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation Process, which was led by the African Commission and the UN following the 2007-08 post-election violence. Two independent commissions, led by judges Phillip Waki and Johannes Kriegler, were established to investigate the post-election violence and electoral irregularities, respectively. Both commissions reported to the relevant international institutions for accountability. That is how we were able to get critical findings and actions regarding the injustices at hand.
Additionally, as a result of this process, Kenya’s constitution established constitutional commissions and independent offices, granting them the requisite mandates and independence to investigate abuses within their respective spheres of responsibility. The KNCHR is one of the four constitutional commissions, as per Article 252(3), with special powers to issue summons to witnesses during investigations.
It is unfortunate that the KNCHR almost compromised on this fight and opportunity when its new chair, Claris Ogangah, accepted the position of vice chairperson of the very unlawful panel. Disappointingly, her decision to take an appointment to an illegal outfit came as Kenyans were fighting within and outside courts for the KNCHR to lead this process, based on the facts stated above. Consequently, since the KNCHR nearly ceded its independence, any process it undertakes must be conducted in consultation with human rights defenders, human rights organizations, survivors, and victim groups.
As such, this raises political questions as to why a chair of an independent commission should accept instructions from the executive it is mandated to investigate. The fact that this is an illegal and compromised process makes it more reprehensible and despicable. Was the newly appointed chair of the KNCHR simply gullible or outrightly not fit-for-purpose?
We challenge the KNCHR to fully exercise this mandate to ensure truth, justice, and reparations for the injustices committed by the state against the people of Kenya. The KNCHR must remain intensely vigilant of the executive's attempts to undermine its work. We commit to fully support and protect its mandate and independence.
Finally, and pursuant to Article 249(3), Parliament should allocate adequate resources to enable the KNCHR to execute this integral assignment, in line with the court order and its constitutional obligations to uphold human rights and deliver justice. This support should also extend to other constitutional commissions and independent offices. The executive should stop interfering with these institutions henceforth.
The recent by-elections have peeled back the veneer of a functioning democracy and exposed a deeply corrupted electoral environment under equally compromised electoral management bodies, which has raised the level of trust deficit in the election process and their ability to conduct the next general election.
What should have been routine, democratic contests to fill vacant seats in 22 electoral areas instead became a display of state manipulation, opposition complicity, and calculated violence. Today, we are releasing accounts that show how state institutions and opposition actors planned and executed violations aimed at defeating the will of the people.
These violations formed part of a deliberate architecture, built on intimidation, bribery, misinformation, violence, and abuse of public resources to distort the electoral process and predetermine outcomes.
Intimidation and violence
Testimonies gathered from election monitors, journalists, and local observers indicate that state agencies played the most decisive role in orchestrating the violence and coercion that marked election day on November 27.
These by-elections were also marred by violence and intimidation across multiple constituencies. In Kasipul, two people were killed on the evening of November 6 in clashes between supporters of ODM’s Boyd Were and independent candidate Philip Aroko during a political rally in the Opondo area, Central Kasipul Ward, Homa Bay. Several others sustained injuries as gunshots were reported during the confrontations,
In Malava, violent clashes and roaming armed goons, some even escorted by police, created an environment of fear, as documented by observers. The goons appeared to be siding with the state-backed candidate, David Ndakwa, who also ran on the ruling party coalition, UDA.
Specific incidents highlighted the organized nature of these threats. MP Peter Kaluma, acting as an election observer at Agoro Sare Primary School, was attacked during the voting day by suspected goons, sustaining a head wound, and his bodyguard’s firearm was reportedly stolen.
In Mbeere North, polling agents were attacked en route to their stations, and at Siakago Social Hall, groups carrying crude weapons clashed during vote counting. Journalists covering the process had their phones confiscated, suggesting that coordinated efforts were being made to disrupt reporting.
Seth Panyako, a candidate in Malava, claimed that state goons stormed his hotel on the eve of the elections, targeting him and his staff to intimidate and disrupt electoral operations. Vehicles carrying money for voter inducement were reported to have altered number plates.
In Khwisero and Kasipul, police intercepted vehicles transporting crude weapons, indicating that armed groups were actively mobilized to influence the elections.
One area chief in Malava summoned women’s groups and youth leaders and warned them that voting for an opposition candidate would “invite trouble from Nairobi.” The cue was taken from Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi and National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetangula, who said that the William Ruto regime would give state appointments to UDA aspirants who lost in the primaries.
The threat that voting for the opposition would strip away constitutionally protected rights frightened several voters, especially beneficiaries of state social protection programs, who said they feared losing stipends or bursaries if they voted “the wrong way.” The low voter turnout can be attributed to such tactics.
Such actions violated Article 81(e) of the Constitution, which requires elections to be free from intimidation, undue influence, and improper pressure, as well as Section 10 of the Election Offences Act, which criminalizes the coercion of voters.
State involvement deepened when police units in Malava, Mbeere North, and Kasipul constituencies were positioned as instruments of political enforcement. There were reports that police briefly blocked accredited election observers in Malava from entering the polling stations, while allowing ruling-party agents to operate freely. When voters protested, tear gas was fired, forcing families, some with infants, to flee.
Such actions breached Article 29(c) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom from violence, and Section 104 of the Elections Act, which mandates facilitation, not obstruction, of voting and oversight.
Perhaps the most alarming finding is the involvement of the Interior Ministry in subverting the will of the people. Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen publicly warned political actors, party supporters, and citizens not to “protect votes” or remain around tallying centres, asserting that vote protection is solely the responsibility of the state. This was stated in Kasipul and other constituencies. While framed as a security directive, the statement discouraged civic oversight and limited lawful monitoring of the electoral process and created opportunities for manipulation and intimidation by those with access to state power.
Public Service Cabinet Secretary Geoffrey Ruku actively campaigned for the UDA candidate in Mbeere North, asserting that the constituency had “already decided” on their next MP, Wa Muthende. On election day, Ruku attempted to enter a polling station at Kanyuambora, only to be blocked by residents who accused him of interference. His public endorsement and attempts to physically access polling stations intimidated voters, pressured polling staff, and undermined electoral neutrality.
Embu Governor Cecily Mbarire, in a joint briefing with Ruku on November 26, claimed that opposition forces planned to intimidate voters in UDA strongholds and reassured residents regarding the security of the process. By framing opposition activity as a threat and dismissing credible allegations against the ruling party, the officials used their positions to influence public perception, swaying voters to align with government-preferred candidates.
Mudavadi, the Prime Cabinet Secretary, was not left behind, as he campaigned in Malava, urging voters to elect candidates “trusted by the President” and rewarding losing aspirants, including Simon Kangwana and Rhyan Injendi Malulu, with diplomatic appointments in Uganda and South Africa, respectively. Linking voter choices to presidential approval and future state rewards pressured citizens to vote in alignment with government preferences.
Misuse of state resources
Bribery emerged as the state’s most organised tactic. In virtually all 22 electoral areas, cash handouts were openly distributed during the campaign period by individuals identified by residents as state and county officials, who used government vehicles.
We observed extensive misuse of public resources to benefit candidates of the ruling party. In Baringo County, government ministers ceremonially launched a fiber-optic link and public Wi-Fi sites during the campaign period. While these projects were framed as development initiatives, their timing coinciding with election campaigns was a clear attempt to influence voters.
Similarly, in Mbeere North constituency, there were disturbing allegations that the ruling party’s candidate spent Sh600 million in state funds, deploying military helicopters, Air Force assets, and other government vehicles to support the campaign. As already stated, Cabinet Secretaries and senior county officials actively campaigned using official convoys and state platforms, blurring the line between government and political activity.
Several boda boda riders were paid Sh1,000 each to mobilise voters for the Broad-Based candidates at dawn on November 27. This violated Section 9 of the Election Offences Act, which expressly prohibits bribery before, during, or after voting.
The use of money to determine electoral outcomes undermines the principles set out for electoral systems that are free and fair, as they should be free from improper influence or corruption. It creates an unequal ground, thereby disenfranchising women, yout,h and persons with disability who do not have equal access to opportunities for access to resources to have an equal chance at being elected.
But it was not just about bribery using cash. State-allied individuals were captured on camera in Malava distributing mattresses branded “GOK” (meaning the Government of Kenya) and blankets to elderly voters.
Breaches of ballot secrecy and sovereignty of the vote
There were numerous violations of the secrecy of the ballot. In Mbeere North constituency, voters were openly encouraged to photograph their marked ballots, a tactic used to enforce vote-buying. Across Magarini, Kasipul, Mbeere, and Machakos, super agents, including government-affiliated officers such as CS Ruku, CS Alfred Mutua, and MP Kaluma, were seen visiting polling stations where they were not registered voters. Their presence was a deliberate attempt to influence voter behavior and intimidate polling staff.
On November 26, Murkomen announced the full deployment of security forces in “hotspot” areas. His remarks, coming a day before the ballot, exerted subtle pressure that there would be violence in the so-called “hotspots,” and this had the potential of suppressing voter turnout.
Furthermore, we note that many voters, especially young people, did not turn out to vote as a consequence of the above-mentioned electoral injustices. As a result, overall voter turnout was 20 percent, thus undermining the legitimacy of the process and outcome.
Institutional failures and weak oversight
The by-elections gave all the worrying signs of lethargy in Kenya’s key electoral and oversight institutions. While we acknowledge that the IEBC fined Aroko and Were Sh1 million each for electoral violence, we are concerned that it failed to rein in the massive voter bribery that occurred in all the electoral areas.
We also note that the IEBC allowed Wa Muthende to run in Mbeere North under the UDA ticket, despite credible allegations of corruption that implicated him in a Sh643 million oxygen plant scandal. Even though the EACC clarified that it only provided advisory input to the IEBC on Wa Muthende's suitability and did not clear him, it was concerning that it failed to take legal action to block his run for public office, as it had done for other candidates before.
It is incumbent on the IEBC to demonstrate its commitment to ensuring adherence to Constitutional requirements for safeguarding electoral integrity, including vetting of candidates for their eligibility in strict compliance with Chapter Six of the Constitution. IEBC must move with speed and exercise its mandate provided under Article 88 (4) (i) to regulate the amount of money that may be spent by or on behalf of a candidate or party in respect of any election by placing in parliament the necessary legislative amendments and regulations required to effectively implement the Election Campaign Financing Act of 2013.
Moreover, despite evidence of police escorting goons attacking opposition campaign teams and voters during the polling day, the IPOA remained silent on incidents of chaos, intimidation, and violence, while police largely failed to prevent attacks on voters, polling agents, and candidates. These institutional shortcomings enabled violations to occur unchecked, undermining the rule of law.
We are sending a clear warning shot to the political elite ahead of 2027. The violence, bribery networks, and breaches of the sovereignty of the vote demonstrate subversion of the democratic rights of the people of Kenya. Politicians should be aware that Kenyans are closely watching, monitoring, and documenting electoral-related anomalies and violations.
Recommendations
Elections should be a safe, dignified, and free expression of the people’s will, not a trigger for fear, violence, or coercion. We urge all stakeholders to take proactive measures to safeguard Kenya’s democracy and protect the rights and lives of all voters.
Signed by:
Editor's note: Read "Who Owns Kenya" here, and "The Economics of Repression" here.
The Kenya Human Rights Commission has released two new reports showing how Kenya’s current economic direction is stripping resources from essential services, worsening inequality, and allowing historical injustices, especially those tied to land, to fester.
Economics of repression
The first report, “The Economics of Repression,” reveals that Kenya’s public finances are now structured in ways that harm ordinary people.
Today, 68 percent of all ordinary revenue goes into paying public debt and government salaries, leaving less than a third of the budget for health, education, food security, water, sanitation, housing, and social protection.
The report traces how this crisis has grown. In just four years, interest on public debt has jumped to 25 percent from 18 percent of total spending, draining money from essential services.
Programmes meant to protect vulnerable citizens are shrinking when they are needed most, according to the report. For example, support for older persons has decreased to Sh15 billion from Sh18 billion, funding for orphans has reduced to Sh5 billion from Sh7 billion, and resources for persons with severe disabilities continue to decline in real terms.
The health sector is also suffering. In Nairobi alone, real health spending has dropped to Sh7 billion from Sh8 billion, despite a population of over 5.7 million residents.
Meanwhile, the county’s pending bills have exploded, now 300 times higher than the county’s total expenditure, and the wage bill consumes nearly half the entire budget, leaving very little for services that citizens depend on.
According to the report, these financial choices have painful consequences.
Families told KHRC about hospitals without medicine, patients being turned away for lack of insurance, and school learning disrupted because the national government delays sending capitation funds.
Youth reported job losses as businesses struggle under relentless taxation. Persons with disabilities wait years for support, while single mothers and families in informal settlements say they have been completely abandoned.
Who owns Kenya?
The second report, “Who Owns Kenya?”, shows that Kenya’s economic crisis is also rooted in land inequality.
Land remains the country’s most valuable resource, but its ownership is extremely unequal, as fewer than two percent of Kenyans own more than half of the country’s arable land, much of it held idle or acquired irregularly.
Meanwhile, 98 percent of all farm holdings, mostly small and averaging just 1.2 hectares, occupy only 46 percent of farmed land, while 0.1 percent of large-scale landholders occupy 39 percent.
This skewed ownership denies millions of Kenyans access to livelihoods, the report says, as it limits agricultural productivity, fuels food insecurity, and locks out young people and women from opportunities to build wealth.
It is also tied to Kenya’s ongoing hunger crisis, where 2.2 million people are currently facing acute food insecurity, as Kenya scores 25 on the Global Hunger Index, placing it in the “serious” category.
The report shows that community land remains especially vulnerable to exploitation. Delays in registration, forged titles, boundary manipulation, and politically engineered evictions continue to displace communities.
In the Coast region, for example, more than 65 percent of residents in counties such as Kilifi, Kwale, and Lamu lack formal land titles, leaving generations trapped as squatters on ancestral land. These counties consistently score below the national average in health, education, and income.
However, despite land’s enormous economic value, land-based taxes contribute less than one percent of total county revenue across most counties. Large landowners continue to benefit from weak taxation, outdated valuation rolls, political interference, and deliberate under-assessment of property values.
Some high-value areas, such as Karen and Muthaiga in Nairobi, and Diani, Mtwapa, and Watamu in the Coast region, have been undervalued for decades, allowing the wealthy to pay far less than they should.
The report finds that Kenya operates two economic systems: one for the wealthy, who enjoy access to land, political protection, and minimal taxation, and another for ordinary citizens, who pay high taxes on basic goods and income while receiving fewer public services.
Despite this, the report states that land remains at the heart of the solution. Introducing a strong and progressive land value tax could transform Kenya’s revenue system.
Taxing idle and speculative land could reduce land hoarding, bring down prices, promote productive land use, and unlock resources for counties.
A well-implemented land tax system could raise significant revenue. Estimates suggest that wealth taxation in Kenya could generate up to Sh125 billion, nearly double the current budget for social protection.
KHRC is calling on the William Ruto regime to rethink how the country raises and spends its resources.
“Kenya needs economic decisions that put people first, protect rights, and ensure fair distribution of national resources,” KHRC executive director Davis Malombe said during the launch. “This includes reducing waste and corruption, managing debt responsibly, strengthening transparency, reforming land taxation, and supporting communities who have been ignored or displaced.”
Background
The National Land Commission (NLC), through its determination published in The Kenya Gazette dated 14th November 2025, has recommended the surrender of 3,200 acres of land by Kakuzi to a section of claimants who presented historical land injustice (HLI) claims before the Commission. Other recommendations by the NLC include;
The affected communities, the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) and the Ndula Resource Centre, that have been at the heart of the struggle for land justice for the Kakuzi-impacted communities for more than 20 years now, welcome, albeit begrudgingly, the decision by the NLC to resolve some of the historical land injustices. However, we note with great concern that numerous issues remain unresolved and that the NLC squandered the single-most opportunity available to resolve land justice impasse spanning over decades. The mandate of the NCL to resolve HLIs is entrenched in the Constitution of Kenya under Chapter 15, the National Land Policy and the National Land Commission Act. The NLC is one of the constitutional commissions given special powers to investigate violations under its mandate and together with other constitutional commissions, under article 249 (2), is independent and not subject to directions or control by any person or authority.
We note that contrary to the above obligations and expectations, the NLC dismissed most of the claims across the board and we shall be undertaking a detailed analysis of the full decision to determine the next actions. Our interpretation of historical land injustices as defined in the National Land Policy and the National Land Commission Act is that they are grounded on the legitimacy of claims, legality of titles notwithstanding and most of the communities were able to prove this.
The KHRC and NRC have worked with the affected communities, provided legal and advocacy support in pursuit of justice for egregious human rights violations perpetrated by Kakuzi. The land that Kakuzi sits on today was acquired through decades of invasion and colonisation of Kenyan territory by European powers culminating to years of systemic, forceful displacement of local communities. It is these communities that have now become victims of rape, killings and gross assault by Kakuzi security guards. Read more here.
While the NLC determination represents recognition of a hard-won, though delayed, victory for victims of historical land injustices, it remains only a partial step toward full restorative justice.
Unresolved issues
The NLC decision, although progressive on the face of it, contains significant gaps outlined below and that must be urgently addressed:
Demands:
Conclusion
Kakuzi’s hostility against its host-communities, characterised by its vow to “use all legal means to protect shareholder rights,” exposes a corporate culture sustained by violence and impunity and one that prioritises profit over human dignity. Not surprising, Kakuzi does not mention the affected communities and the need to resolve the outstanding historical land injustices, clearly exposing a company that has failed to learn from its past mistakes. Instead, Kakuzi focused on preserving the rights, interests of the shareholders and the potential negative impact on its operations and earnings at the expense of community rights.
The KHRC and NRC are currently reviewing the full decision of the NLC to understand the circumstances that led to the dismissal of the nine claims and other submissions presented to the Commission by claimants from other parts of the country. We shall exhaust all the political and legal means available to challenge the wanton, runaway and unacceptable blanket dismissal of the nine claims in favour of Kakuzi.
Further, we shall pursue the issue of compensation for material loss suffered by Kituamba-Kaloleni IDPs during the December 1989 violent and destructive evictions and the 1999 burning of houses and other property in Gaichanjiru village in Milimani by Kakuzi PLC.
In conclusion and recognising that this struggle has been an intergenerational fight that has taken close to six decades marked by gains and pitfalls, we shall not retreat or surrender. We remain unbowed.
Chairperson, Commissioners, distinguished delegates,
We address this Commission at a moment of a disturbing constitutional and human rights crisis in Kenya. Three years into President William Ruto's regime, the country is witnessing systematic state violence, institutional capture, and contempt for the rule of law. The President's state-of-the-nation addresses have erased the blood and pain of victims of state repression.
The regime has dismantled democratic guardrails. Parliament has been reduced to a rubber stamp, the Judiciary battered through contempt and defiance, and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions weaponized to persecute dissenters while shielding allies. Court orders are routinely ignored, unconstitutional bodies created, and repressive legislation rammed through a captured legislature. This has enabled attempts to extend presidential term limits and restrict fundamental freedoms.
The human toll is staggering. Between 2023 and 2025, state security forces killed more than 246 people. In July 2023 alone, 51 protesters were killed in five days during demonstrations against punitive taxation. Enforced disappearances, abductions, torture, and arbitrary arrests have become normalized. More than 1,700 protesters, including minors, have been unlawfully arrested, and 75 face trumped-up terrorism charges. Oversight bodies, including the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, the Independent Policing Oversight Authority, the Office of the Controller of Budget, and the Office of the Auditor-General, have been systematically weakened.
We are deeply concerned by credible reports implicating Safaricom PLC, Kenya's largest telecommunications provider, and Vodafone Group PLC, in alleged systematic breaches of customers' data privacy and complicity in grave human rights violations. Investigations have revealed that Safaricom allegedly grants security agencies unfettered access to sensitive customer data, enabling state surveillance and facilitating enforced disappearances, renditions, and extrajudicial killings in Kenya. Such actions have life-and-death consequences.
Civic space is also closing fast. CIVICUS Monitor now ranks Kenya as "repressed." Journalists, human rights defenders, and content creators face arbitrary arrests, abductions, and killings. Some of the most recent alarming cases include those of Martin Mavenjina, Bob Njagi, and Nicholas Oyoo. Mavenjina, a staff member of KHRC, was illegally and extraordinarily renditioned to Uganda in June this year for his role in holding the Kenyan regime accountable for egregious human rights violations. To date, Mavenjina remains trapped in Uganda. Still, this year, Ugandan state agents abducted Njagi and Oyoo for standing in solidarity with Bobi Wine. Their whereabouts remain unknown.
This authoritarian drift is compounded by deep corruption and economic mismanagement. Billions have been lost through procurement scandals in health, agriculture, housing, and infrastructure, while ordinary Kenyans face worsening poverty, mass evictions, and crumbling essential services.
Several multinational corporations have been implicated in serious human rights violations, including assault, killings, and rape, despite Kenya being the first country to adopt a National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights. Across Kenya, communities are also being denied their fair share of natural resource revenues, with royalties owed under the Mining Act of 2016 still unpaid eight years after its enactment. Free, prior, and informed consent, as well as community development agreements, are intended to ensure meaningful consultation, participation, and equitable benefit-sharing; however, they remain largely unimplemented.
Kenya also continues to fall short of its constitutional and international obligations to protect women and minority groups, particularly gender and sexual minorities. LGBTQI+ persons remain exposed to hate, discrimination, and violence with little state protection. LGBTQI+ organizations have been unlawfully raided or denied registration, and transgender persons continue to be denied legal gender recognition despite judicial guidance.
As these violations are happening, the Kenyan regime continues to show an unwillingness to cooperate with international and regional human rights mechanisms. It has failed to extend standing invitations to Special Rapporteurs and has ignored or delayed responses to multiple requests for country visits by mandate holders covering critical areas.
We urge this Commission to hold the Kenyan state and its corporate enablers accountable and to press for strong safeguards to ensure that power and technology are not weaponized against citizens. Specifically, we make the following recommendations:
Fellow East Africans,
We stand here as East African Citizens, mandated by the fact that Jumuiya ni yetu. We continue to witness human rights violations and the degradation of democracy across the region, and as citizens of Jumuiya, we stand as one. We stand here, grounded in our East African identity, as members of the East African Community. Boarders will not limit our brotherhood and sisterhood. The tragic occurrences we are witnessing in Tanzania go against the very principles that underpin the East African community. We stand here to state that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Contrary to rumours circulating, no elections are happening in Tanzania tomorrow. As all international media companies have been barred from entering Tanzania, and many local licenses have been withdrawn, we raise our voices on behalf of Jumuiya, our Tanzanian comrades, and the people of East Africa. Tanzanians have spoken by stating, “On our part, we haven't even described it as an election. As for an election to be free and fair, there must, at least, be a competitive election. This is not an election. Ni maigizo. (drama)” - J.K. Tanzania
There are no free and fair elections happening in Tanzania. Samia Suluhu is preparing for her coronation, as her only opposition is her very own shadow. All of her main opposition candidates have either been detained or barred from participation by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The country has been reeling over a silent epidemic of enforced disappearances of dissenting voices, regular abductions, arbitrary detention, torture, rape, extrajudicial killings, and judicial harassment. These atrocities and crimes against humanity are primarily against perceived opponents of the current regime and many people who rally against electoral malpractice.
ELIMINATION OF OPPOSITION AND HUMAN RIGHTS ATROCITIES
The violations have particularly targeted the CHADEMA, the leading opposition party in Tanzania, as well as extending to religious institutions, leaders, activists, influencers, and vocal citizens of all backgrounds. There have been over 250 reported and documented cases of enforced disappearances, with the majority of victims never to be seen again, or their lifeless bodies found months later. This report is available in both Swahili and English.
Additionally, Tanzania has scaled its police force in what appears to be preparation for a war against its citizens, rather than an election. Over the past three weeks, more than 55 people have been forcibly disappeared, tortured, murdered, and held incommunicado. According to a recent report by Amnesty International, repression in Tanzania has intensified. Amnesty has also referred to Tanzania’s situation under Suluhu and the forthcoming elections as unopposed, unchecked, and unjust. The report, titled “Wave of Terror Sweeps Across Tanzania,” is linked here within.
There has been a violent arrest of CHADEMA’s party leader, Tundu Lissu, and main competitor to Suluhu, and an arraignment over frivolous treason charges for merely demanding reforms before elections. His arrest and trumped-up charges, and the regime's overreach, marked a further escalation of civil liberties. CHADEMA was subsequently banned from participating in the election for demanding changes in the electoral code and was further prohibited from conducting any political activity.
Officials of CHADEMA and civilians alike have been arrested arbitrarily, detained, assaulted, generally harassed, and barred from attending the sham trial of Lissu, which by Tanzanian law is a public trial. Shaban Moyo, Felisuts Festo, Dr Fred Chacha Hatari, among others, share their direct experiences, with photo evidence as to the torture they endured in the hands of Tanzanian authorities, here.
We all remember that a team of six observers from Kenya was prevented from entering Tanzania while on a mission to observe the sham Lissu Trial. They were temporarily detained and deported back to Nairobi without any valid reason, contrary to the provisions of the East African treaty. Two of the observers, Boniface Mwangi of Kenya and Agather Atuhaire of Uganda, were violently abducted, arbitrarily detained, tortured, raped, and subjected to other forms of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment while in Tanzanian custody.
Still, John Heche, CHADEMA’s national vice-chairperson, was denied entry into Kenya to attend Raila Odinga’s funeral, with his passport confiscated by authorities while still on the Kenyan side of the border—an act carried out with total impunity. Soon after, he was abducted outside the High Court of Tanzania, in blatant disregard of the laws governing arrests. These actions reflect a pattern of lawlessness and political persecution carried out with complete impunity. Unofficial and unlawful travel restrictions have been imposed on almost every CHADEMA leader and any government critic.
TARGETING OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND LEADERS
Repression has also extended to religious institutions and leaders speaking out against human rights abuses. On June 2 of this year, the Suluhu regime deregistered the Ufufuo na Uzima (the Glory of Christ) Church in Tanzania, led by outspoken Bishop Dr. Josephat Gwajima, who is well-known for his outspoken criticism of bad governance and human rights abuses in Tanzania, as well as his calls for accountability. The regime falsely and maliciously accused the church of violating the Societies Act.
The church was deregistered a few days after calling for an end to abductions and enforced disappearances in Tanzania. The deregistration has restricted the freedom of worship of thousands of Ufufuo na Uzima congregants. Bishop Dr. Benson Bagonza of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania (ELCT), Karagwe Diocese, has also publicly stated that he fears for his life after receiving credible threats from individuals known as “wasiojulikana” (a term meaning “unknown assailants” or “people who are unknown”, used to refer to unknown political abductors and enforcers, mainly working for, and at the behest of the regime).
On March 16, 2025, a televangelist, Stephen Gumbo, was violently abducted from his home in Muriet, Arusha, by two gunmen who introduced themselves as police officers. He was later picked up at the Kilimanjaro West forest, some 200 kilometers away, having been badly injured, tortured, and brutalized by the gunmen who accused him of “defaming” national leaders in his sermons. In a similar vein, Bishop Machumu Kadatu, alias Mwanamapinduzi, also of the Ufufuo na Uzima Church, had to flee the country after being targeted for disappearance and torture. Bishop Dickson Kabigumila is the latest to flee the country, fearing for his life, after receiving numerous threats.
A while back, on September 6, 2024, Ali Mohammed Kibao, a 69-year-old senior CHADEMA party official, was abducted from a bus in Dar es Salaam. He was reported missing for several hours before his body was discovered near the shores of the Indian Ocean the next morning. Kibao had been brutally murdered, with his face disfigured with acid, indicating apparent torture. There has been no visible progress on the investigation into Kibao’s death to date.
Following Ali Kibao’s gruesome murder, there have been multiple abductions, arrests, and torture, including through rape and other forms of sexual violence, of CHADEMA officials, their supporters, and other Tanzanians who express different views or challenge Suluhu’s repressive regime. In May 2025, Mdude Nyangali, a journalist and author, was abducted by armed men believed to be security operatives. His abduction was reportedly brutal, with scenes awash with trails of blood along the path where he was dragged. Since his abduction and despite calls, protests, and legal efforts, Nyangali is still missing. Similarly, a former Tanzanian ambassador and outspoken critic of the Suluhu regime, Humphrey Polepole, was abducted in a bloody scene. He is still missing.
These attacks are part of a broader trend of violence and intimidation against outspoken critics of the Tanzanian regime, including church leaders, and constitute violations of freedom of religion (protected in Article 18 of the ICCPR) and freedom of expression of religious leaders (protected in Article 19 of the ICCPR).
RESTRICTION OF MEDIA AND ONLINE FREEDOMS
A series of laws and non-legal mechanisms have been employed to criminalize dissent, censor the media, and control digital spaces. Media and digital censorship remained pervasive during the period as journalists and online content creators continued to face arrests, bans, and surveillance. All international media bodies have been denied entry into Tanzania. There are many more examples of the suppressive regulations being passed in Tanzania available through this complimentary report.
LACK OF CREDIBLE ELECTION OBSERVATIONS
No credible observation mission is currently in Tanzania. Belgium, Sweden, Germany, and Ireland have all withdrawn from the elections. The US is monitoring the situation, although it is not providing any official observers. The EU Delegation has no proper observation and only maintains the diplomatic tradition of ‘DiploWatch’. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is not participating at this time.
The African Union Commission has officially announced the arrival of the African Union Election Observation Mission (AUEOM) for the sham poll, despite the ongoing human rights crisis and concerns about the fairness of the elections. On October 24, Dr. Speciosa Kazibwe stated, “As a community founded on the principles of good governance, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, the EAC regards credible elections as the cornerstone of democracy and regional integration.” It is clear that those who choose to recognize the Tanzanian elections are turning a blind eye to the realities of human rights violations, which bar the opposition from participation. Tanzanians have called for a protest, exercising their constitutional rights, in light of the unfair elections that Suluhu plans to proceed with.
NO REFORMS, THEREFORE, NO ELECTIONS
The so-called “election” in Tanzania is a sham. The outcome was fixed the moment Suluhu strangled all opposition, silenced the media, and shut down political space. Most credible international observers have pulled out because, what, exactly, is there to observe in a coronation?
Africans are rightfully outraged that the African Union, an institution meant to defend human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, has chosen silence over principle. It increasingly resembles a club of presidents shielding each other rather than protecting the people they claim to serve. The same betrayal is evident in SADC and the EAC. We are coming to the defense of Tanzanians and hereby give notice to Tanzania and all authoritarian regimes in the rest of East Africa and Africa. As despots regroup to oppress citizens, we, as the citizens, are similarly regrouping to reclaim our countries and our inherent freedoms. Aluta continua!
Signed
Editor's note: Read the petition here.
Reuben Kigame and the Kenya Human Rights Commission have filed a petition seeking to overturn the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2024, warning that it grants the state unfettered power to surveil, silence, and even endanger citizens who criticize the regime.
Mr. William Ruto signed the contentious law on October 15, 2025, despite growing concerns that it could exacerbate state-sponsored repression.
At the heart of the challenge is a sweeping clause criminalizing the publication of what the law vaguely calls “false, misleading, or mischievous information.” The petitioners argue that this vague and overbroad definition effectively grants the regime the discretion to determine what constitutes truth and to punish those who speak out against it.
The law compels all social-media users to verify their accounts using their government-issued legal names, a move the petitioners say opens the door to state surveillance, profiling, and intimidation of regime critics. The petition notes that this is especially dangerous in a country where human rights defenders, journalists, and activists have historically been abducted, tortured, or killed after speaking out.
“The mandatory verification requirement constitutes a blanket infringement of the right to privacy under Article 31 of the Constitution,” the petition reads. “It forces the unnecessary revelation of private affairs and directly infringes upon the privacy of communications.”
Kigame and KHRC warn that the law would make anonymity, long a shield for whistleblowers and victims of state violence, illegal. It also forces digital platforms to rapidly remove posts flagged as offensive, and this will create a culture of pre-emptive censorship that silences online debate before it even begins.
“This law criminalizes speech on the basis of speculation,” the petition says. “It targets communication that the state claims could hypothetically cause harm, without any demonstrable link between expression and outcome.”
Kigame and KHRC also say the manner in which the bill was passed was itself unconstitutional, as it was not referred to or debated by the Senate, despite affecting functions that fall under county governments.
The Board of Directors and staff of the Kenya Human Rights Commission mourn with deep grief the passing of Comrade Raila Amolo Odinga on October 15, 2025, in India.
Baba, as he was fondly known in Kenya and beyond, was a renowned statesman and Pan-Africanist who will be remembered for his fearless fight for human rights, democracy, and justice. Despite what some may consider missteps in the latter years of his political life, his courage, sacrifices, and consistency in pushing for constitutionalism and democratic governance remain unmatched in modern-day Kenyan politics.
Throughout Kenya’s modern history, Baba played a key role in advancing human rights and democratic governance. His detention without trial in the 1980s for opposing one-party rule symbolized a broader struggle for political freedoms. He was at the forefront of the push for multiparty democracy in the early 1990s. He later became one of the key political figures supporting the reform movement that led to the adoption of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.
Over the years, Baba consistently spoke out against state repression, championed electoral justice, and supported grassroots movements demanding accountability. His leadership during the constitutional referendum campaigns and post-election reform processes reflected a deep commitment to expanding civic space and strengthening democratic institutions.
Baba’s towering contributions to the struggle for a just society, as a compatriot and a general of the struggle, are woven with commitment and sacrifice for justice and the greater good of all people. He fought in the courts, in Parliament, in government boardrooms, and on the streets, always driven by the conviction that personal sacrifice was part of the arc of history. Whether confronting authoritarianism, demanding accountability, or defending civic freedoms, his voice was never silenced by injustice.
Since KHRC’s formation in 1992 as a non-governmental organization, Baba, through various political formations, has stood among our closest collaborators as we pursued our vision of a democratic, pro-people, rights-respecting state and society. This bond is anchored in our shared history and DNA. KHRC is a political advocacy organization founded by political activists and human rights defenders committed to transformative change through a robust and free civil society.
Our engagement with Baba was particularly significant during the constitutional and political reform struggles of the 1990s. He stood in solidarity with human rights defenders at critical moments, including joining protests in Nairobi during the campaigns against extrajudicial killings that we led. He was among the most accessible political leaders during the grand coalition government, listening to civil society ideas and often moving them forward through political channels.
We have sustained this strategic engagement and partnership over the years. A notable example was on November 8, 2023, when Baba was the chief guest at a joint launch by KHRC and the Mau Mau War Veterans Association of the veterans’ foundation, website, and book.
We honour his sacrifices and celebrate Baba’s revolutionary achievements in the struggle for a just Kenya. We extend our heartfelt condolences to Mama Ida Odinga, their children, the wider Jaramogi family, and the people of Kenya, and renew our commitment to stay the course in delivering a democratic state and society.
Baba, may you rest in Power. Your political spirit lives on.
Co-signed
Maina Kiai, Board Chairperson | Betty Okero, Board Vice-Chairperson | Nerima Wako, Board Member | Kwamchetsi Makokha, Board Member | Lorna Dias, Board Member | Gabriel Dollan, Board Member | Wanjiru Gikonyo, Board Member | Davis Malombe, Executive Director and Secretary to the Board