On June 25, 2024, security forces unleashed violence on a scale rarely seen in recent memory against protesters demanding good governance and accountability for abuses attributed to the regime of Mr William Ruto.
A comparable level of violence was reported a year later, on June 25 and again on July 7.
Ruto subsequently announced plans to compensate the families of those killed, delegating this responsibility to his office.
A court later ruled that the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) is tasked with this function.
KNCHR subsequently urged the public to submit memoranda to inform the process.
The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) submitted its memorandum, urging KNCHR to prioritise accountability, support for victims, a public apology from Ruto, assurances that such violence will not recur, and legislation to enable these changes.
Read our submissions below:
Surviving After Torture: A Case Digest On The Struggle For Justice by Torture Survivors in Kenya
We extend our heartfelt condolences to the families, loved ones, students, teachers, and the entire community affected by the tragic fire at Utumishi Girls Academy in Gilgil, Nakuru County, which has so far claimed 16 students' lives and left dozens injured.
Our hearts are heavy as civil society in the education sector. No parent should send a child to school only to receive news of death, injury, or tragedy.
Schools are meant to be places of safety, learning, hope, and growth, not places where children lose their lives in preventable disasters.
This tragedy is especially painful because it comes as the country is still mourning and demanding justice for the victims of the Hillside Endarasha Academy tragedy in Nyeri, where 21 innocent boys lost their lives in 2024.
Before that, Kenya witnessed similar deadly school fires and disasters at St. Kizito in 1991, Bombolulu Girls in 1998, Nyeri High School in 1999, Kyanguli Secondary School in 2001, Asumbi Girls in 2012, and Moi Girls, Nairobi, in 2017.
Investigations repeatedly show carelessness, weak enforcement of safety rules, poor emergency readiness, and ongoing problems within institutions responsible for protecting students.
The latest tragedy at Utumishi Girls Academy, Gilgil, raises serious and urgent questions about how safe Kenyan boarding schools really are and whether the Ministry of Education is truly enforcing the rules.
Kenya has clear school safety rules through the Ministry of Education’s Safety Standards Manual for Schools. These rules require enough space in dormitories, emergency exits, doors that open outward, fire extinguishers, regular fire drills, disaster readiness plans, secure school grounds, and regular checks to keep students safe.
However, despite these clear standards, they are not followed. As a result, lives continue to be lost in foreseeable and preventable tragedies.
Kenyan parents trust schools and government bodies with their children’s lives. They expect that before a boarding school opens, proper safety checks, emergency plans, fire response systems, and dormitory safety rules are fully in place and confirmed. Sadly, repeated tragedies reveal serious problems with enforcement, accountability, and readiness.
Sending a child to school should never be a life-or-death choice. Yet more Kenyan parents are afraid because school tragedies are becoming a worrying pattern instead of rare events.
We therefore demand:
The Kenya Human Rights Commission is taking legal action against the United Democratic Alliance (UDA) and its officials for mismanaging public funds, breaking statutory and constitutional provisions, and failing to meet their tax obligations.
The Auditor General found that UDA paid over Sh128 million in net salaries but failed, on purpose and by neglect, to deduct and send Pay As You Earn (PAYE) taxes. This caused Sh69 million in unpaid taxes for the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 financial years.
UDA has received the most money from the Political Parties Fund. In the 2025-2026 financial year alone, it got over Sh789 million. The taxes we pay go into the Fund, which is then given to outfits like UDA to fill their troughs. So, it is our money being mismanaged and stolen. We have every reason to be enraged, demand accountability from UDA and its luminaries, and ensure that entities benefiting from public funds meet the highest standards of integrity and compliance.
UDA also failed to pay the withholding tax and the public procurement capacity-building levy, breaking the Public Finance Management Act. But Mr William Ruto’s party did more than evade taxes. It did not pay required contributions to the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) and the Social Health Insurance Fund (SHIF), putting its employees at risk of losing important social protection benefits. This clearly violates employees’ labour and social security rights.
Ironically, even though UDA strongly supports the housing project, it did not pay the housing levy for its employees. Clearly, the party does not believe in its own vision of affordable housing.
Specifically, these are some of the laws that Ruto’s UDA has broken and must be held accountable for:
KHRC points out that failing to meet tax, statutory, and constitutional duties weakens support for socio-economic rights like education and health. These sectors already face funding gaps of Sh260 billion and Sh72 billion, respectively.
While KHRC is taking legal action, it also calls on oversight and enforcement agencies to act within their roles. The Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) must collect all unpaid taxes and penalties. The Office of the Registrar of Political Parties (ORPP) must review UDA’s compliance status and eligibility for continued access to public funding. The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) must investigate the misuse of public resources. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), working with KRA and EACC, must prosecute UDA officials responsible for tax evasion.
We are heartbroken and angered by the killings of Henry Otieno and Jack Omenda in Gem-Ramula, Siaya, on April 6, 2026. We are also troubled by ongoing police harassment and intimidation of local residents. These deaths followed a confrontation between community members and police officers connected to mining activities involving Shanta Gold Limited.
Shanta Gold has explored gold in Ramula–Mwibona and the wider western region for several years. When the company announced in 2022 that it had found commercially viable gold, it caused fear, division, and tension in the community. Since then, the company’s operations have lacked transparency, shared little information, and involved few community members, leading to mistrust and anxiety about the project.
Despite these concerns, the company has continued its activities with state protection, including police sent against unarmed residents seeking accountability. The company’s actions and strong state support raise serious questions about who backs Shanta Gold in Kenya and whose interests are protected.
The company’s apparent impunity suggests it has powerful supporters and acts as if above the law. This protection encourages disregard for legal processes and accountability, harming community rights and the rule of law. Guided by the constitution and international human rights standards, we address the following critical issues.
The events leading to these deaths are troubling. Community members held a peaceful protest to raise concerns about land rights, lack of consent, and transparency in local mining activities. Instead of listening or calming the situation, police responded with violence, even using live ammunition against unarmed people.
This was a clear and unjustified use of excessive force that led to two deaths. There is no excuse for using lethal force against unarmed citizens exercising their constitutional rights. These actions show a growing pattern of repression around Shanta Gold’s operations, where communities face threats, intimidation, and pressure.
We are also troubled by efforts from the Officer Commanding Police Division (OCPD) Yala, Charles Wafula, to misrepresent these events to the public. Trying to distort the facts in such serious cases is unacceptable and only protects those responsible. We call for full transparency and an immediate, independent investigation into the police’s actions.
We have received reliable reports of ongoing harassment by officers from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI). This includes the arrest of a woman and her three sons in ways the community describes as distressing and inhumane. The pressure, fear, and harassment linked to these actions reportedly contributed to the death by suicide of one of the sons.
We are especially concerned about the Ministry of Interior’s heavy involvement in what should be a civilian and regulatory issue handled by the Ministry of Mining and Blue Economy. Turning this process into a security matter is unlawful and inappropriate.
We have also seen cases of arbitrary arrests and what appear to be false or minor charges. These actions have forced families into serious financial hardship, even making them sell livestock to pay high bail. Such practices are oppressive and show a pattern of using the justice system to silence dissent.
We call out the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) for not acting independently or objectively. Maintaining charges from questionable arrests raises serious concerns about complicity, abuse of process, and loss of public trust in the justice system. The ODPP should not allow itself to be used to legitimize repression.
Even more worrying is the open disregard for the rule of law. There is a valid court order from the Siaya Law Courts in ELCLPET/E002/2025 stopping Shanta Gold from moving forward with resettlement and compensation. Yet, despite this order, operations continue, and state agencies are not enforcing the law.
This is a direct attack on the authority of the courts and the foundations of our constitutional principles. Ignoring court orders in this way raises serious questions about the integrity of our institutions and whether some people act above the law.
It is troubling how regulatory processes have been managed. The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for this project did not include a resettlement action plan, though displacement was likely. Stakeholders pointed out this major flaw and formally objected, but licenses were still issued. Shanta Gold also did not share details about compensation, leaving the community in the dark until the Siaya County Commissioner recently mentioned relocating over 1,200 homesteads and showed houses being built by the company. These issues reveal a deeper failure and suggest the Ministry of Mining and Blue Economy and other regulators are not complying with the Mining Act, 2016, which requires genuine community involvement, proper land access, informed consent, and protection of community interests.
What is happening also goes against Kenya’s commitments under international human rights law. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights say the state must protect people from abuses, and companies must respect those rights. Free, prior, and informed consent ensures communities can make their own choices and are not forced, misled, or left out of important decisions. In Ramula, people have repeatedly questioned how consent was obtained, but their concerns have been ignored.
The OCPD in Yala is responsible for officers under his command, including the use of lethal force and misrepresenting events. The DCI must answer for ongoing harassment, intimidation, and arbitrary arrests by officers in Ramula and Mwibona. The County Commissioner, as the national government’s representative, should protect citizens, not allow fear and coercion. The National Land Commission (NLC) is supposed to manage public land, oversee land acquisition, and protect communities from forced displacement. Its absence in this conflict over land rights and resettlement is troubling and cannot be excused.
We are also concerned about the April 7, 2026, statement from the Principal Secretary for Mining, Harry Kimtai, who said the Ministry plans to issue a license to Shanta Gold in Ikolomani, even though serious human rights issues in Ramula remain unresolved. The announcement felt casual and dismissive, showing little understanding of the situation’s seriousness. The ministry should not appear to support an investor while communities still have real concerns about consent, land rights, and ongoing violations.
In 2025, during the National Jukwaa la Madini meeting, community members met the Principal Secretary in his office, shared their challenges, and formally invited him to visit Ramula. He agreed, but this promise has not been kept, even after lives were lost. Instead, the ministry has held important meetings in Kisumu, far from the affected community. This raises serious questions about whether these processes meet the constitutional requirement for real public participation under Article 10 and the Mining Act, 2016, which calls for identifying and involving affected communities. It also raises doubts about why meetings are not held openly with the actual community and whether these processes are just formalities to approve decisions already made.
The ministry has acted quickly in other situations, but its absence in Ramula at this crucial time raises an important question: Are all lives valued equally, or is the state’s response influenced by other factors? We stress that engaging with communities cannot be done from boardrooms or hotels. When rights, land, and livelihoods are at risk, the law requires the state to go to the people, not expect the people to come to them.
We recognize that mining is not a devolved function under the constitution, but we are deeply concerned by the ongoing silence and inaction of the County Government of Siaya, including the governor, County Assembly, senator, area MP, and MCA. These leaders were elected to protect the interests of Ramula’s people. Their absence at this critical time is obvious and unacceptable.
We are especially worried about parts of the county leadership who have long supported the company. The governor’s recent change in stance raises more doubts than trust. If leaders had acted sooner and more firmly, the situation might not have reached the point where lives were lost. We have also learned that the County Government gave the company a “no objection” letter, which urgently needs to be explained and accounted for.
The area MP and MCA have also supported the company, and the senator’s silence during these serious events is troubling. This failure of leadership has left the community exposed, unheard, and unprotected.
We especially call on the governor, as a senior counsel and a leader who knows constitutional and international human rights law, to step up and show principled leadership. This role comes with a greater duty to uphold the law, defend citizens’ rights, and speak clearly against violations.
Shanta Gold must immediately take responsibility for the human rights risks and harm caused by its operations in Ramula. Continuing to operate amid violence, intimidation, disputed consent, and ignoring legal processes breaches Kenyan law and international standards, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. A company cannot claim to be uninvolved when its actions are directly linked to repression and harm against local communities.
We want to make it clear to Shanta Gold, its financiers, and business partners that we will use every available option to seek accountability. This includes starting proceedings with regional and international human rights bodies, such as the African human rights system, and filing formal complaints under international business conduct rules. We will also work with others in the company’s gold supply chain, like refiners, buyers, and financial institutions, to ensure any gold linked to human rights abuses in Ramula is closely examined and kept out of responsible markets. What is happening in Ramula puts Shanta Gold at serious legal, reputational, and business risk, and we will take further action to demand accountability if needed.
In light of these accounts, we demand that:
1. All mining-related activities by Shanta Gold in Ramula and across the Nyanza region must be immediately suspended until there is full compliance with the law, including the development of a credible resettlement action plan and the conduct of genuine, community-centred consultations in line with free, prior and informed consent.
2. All officers who discharged live ammunition against peaceful protesters must be immediately identified, investigated, and prosecuted, together with their commanding officers. Command responsibility must be enforced without exception.
3. The Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) must undertake a swift, transparent, and public investigation into the killings in Ramula, as well as the broader pattern of policing and use of force in the area.
4. The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) must urgently initiate independent investigations to determine the extent of injustices, document violations, and pursue appropriate accountability and redress for affected communities.
5. The County Commissioner, the Sub-County Criminal Investigations Officer Yala, the OCPD Yala, and all officers directly or indirectly implicated must step aside immediately to allow for independent and impartial investigations.
6. The State Department for Mining must be urgently summoned by Parliament to publicly account for and disclose the legal and procedural basis upon which licenses were issued and operations allowed to proceed in the face of clear objections, legal concerns, and procedural irregularities.
7. NLC must urgently intervene to assess the legality of land acquisition processes, safeguard community land rights, and halt any actions that may lead to unlawful displacement.
8. ODPP must be held accountable for the institution and continuation of punitive and frivolous charges against protesters. The use of the criminal justice system to intimidate, harass, and silence citizens is an abuse of prosecutorial power and must cease immediately.
Haki Madini Kenya Coalition | Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) | Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) | Inuka Kenya Ni SiSi | Twajibike Platform | Community Action for Nature Conservation (Canco) | Community Initiative Action Group | Independent Medico-Legal Unit (IMLU) | Defenders Coalition | Usalama Reforms Forum | Transparency International Kenya | Catalyste | Ramula Community Members | Geomine Consulting Group | Article 19 | Kenya Oil and Gas working group
Authorities have exhumed 33 bodies, most believed to be children, from a mass grave in Kericho. A court order had authorized the burial of just 13. The remaining 20 bodies, undocumented and unexplained, have triggered questions about procedural lapses, criminal liability, and the possibility of state involvement.
Documents obtained by the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) show that only 13 bodies, comprising eight adults, one child, three foetuses, and a set of stillborn twins, were officially cleared for burial, according to correspondence from Nyamira County Referral Hospital to the Chief Magistrate of Nyamira Law Courts. No authorization was given for the additional 20 bodies.
The process interring the bodies took place without proper documentation, coordination, or oversight by county health authorities, raising serious concerns about the roles of hospital officials, cemetery management, and law enforcement agencies in this incident.
So far, neither hospital authorities nor police have accounted for the 20 unidentified bodies. KHRC warns this may signal an attempt to conceal unlawful deaths. Kenya’s long history of enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and state cover-ups backs this up.
The Kericho discovery mirrors the 2024 Embakasi quarry case, where bodies of murdered women were discovered. Witnesses noted that some victims had toothpaste smeared around their eyes, a tactic previously used by protesters to counteract teargas during anti-finance bill demonstrations.
The discovery further brings to mind the mass deaths in Shakahola forest in Kilifi, where 429 bodies were recovered amid delayed and opaque investigations. The latest discovery forms part of a criminal trend of mass fatalities and weak accountability in the country.
The Kericho incident is a threat to Kenyans’ constitutional rights to life and dignity, and against this backdrop, the KHRC demands an urgent, independent, and transparent investigation that includes:
On February 23, 2026, Mr. William Ruto’s regime carried out an illegal and unjustified rendition of Brian Kagoro, the Africa Director of the Open Society Foundations (OSF), barring him from entering Kenya, and taking him to South Africa.
Immigration officials intercepted him on February 22 when he arrived at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport. Shortly, officers from the National Intelligence Service (NIS) detained and subjected him to an intensive interrogation that lasted 14 hours. Later, Kagoro was verbally declared persona non grata and removed from Kenya’s territory without due process, after authorities falsely and maliciously accused him of funding the Gen Z–led protests in Kenya, allegations that remain unsupported and politically motivated.
The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) condemns this action as an act of aggression and a direct assault on the work of human rights defenders across the region. The incident points to a deepening trend of transnational repression, which led CIVICUS Monitor to classify Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda as repressed in its 2024 and 2026 reports, an assessment that signals severe democratic backsliding and a rapidly shrinking civic space.
Kagoro is a longtime and widely respected Pan-Africanist and democracy advocate who has, for decades, contributed to advancing democratic freedoms and accountability for human rights abuses across Africa. He has engaged in Kenya in various capacities over many years, making his sudden targeting alarming and unjustifiable.
This arbitrary action constitutes a gross violation of Kagoro’s constitutional rights, including the right to human dignity, freedom and security of the person, freedom of expression, protection from arbitrary detention, and the right to fair administrative action. Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya guarantees that every person is entitled to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable, procedurally fair, and accompanied by written reasons where rights are adversely affected. These guarantees were blatantly ignored in Kagoro’s case, after he was also held for a long time, denied legal representation, and a family contact.
The assault on Kagoro follows a troubling ordeal involving KHRC’s Martin Mavenjina, who was illegally and extraordinarily renditioned to Uganda on July 5, 2025. To date, the Ruto regime has refused to allow his return to Kenya, and this reinforces concerns about an entrenched policy of targeting human rights defenders.
As the country approaches the 2027 general election, KHRC notes that the government appears intent on deflecting political responsibility for the widespread protests that erupted organically in 2024 and 2025 by attributing them to foreign influence. This narrative ignores the domestic grievances that drove thousands of young Kenyans into the streets; anger fueled by punitive political and economic policies and the steady erosion of democratic accountability.
Indeed, the regime’s own actions betray this deflection. The gazettement of a panel of experts on compensation for victims of demonstrations and public protests—since declared unconstitutional for usurping the mandate of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR)—amounts to an implied admission of state responsibility, even as officials publicly deny it. This contradiction underscores a broader attempt at cover-up and whitewashing.
KHRC therefore demands the immediate reversal of the decision against Kagoro to allow him unfettered entry into and work in Kenya, in line with his regional leadership mandate. The same demand applies to Mavenjina. KHRC further demands that NIS and Kenya’s Immigration Department issue a written explanation for the denial of entry and rendition, offer a public apology, and guarantee non-repetition. KHRC also urges the KNCHR and the Commission on Administrative Justice to initiate independent investigations into the growing trend of renditions targeting human rights defenders and to recommend effective remedies. Finally, KHRC demands that the Ruto regime uphold human rights and the rule of law in all its actions.
The Board and Secretariat of the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) are deeply saddened by the demise of comrade Mugambi Kiai on February 23, 2026. We extend our sincere condolences to his family, friends, and the wider human rights movement.
Mugambi shared a long and deep relationship with KHRC, having volunteered as one of its first staff members in the early 1990s. He joined KHRC at a time of severe political repression under KANU and the dictatorship of Daniel arap Moi, when the risks were high.
Mugambi was an exceptionally brilliant and fearless constitutional lawyer and governance expert. Throughout his life, he was a strong voice for human rights and democracy in Kenya and beyond.
At the time of his death, Mugambi was serving as Regional Director at ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa. He previously worked as a Senior Advisor at Open Society Initiative for East Africa (OSIEA), where he supported civic action and democratic reform across the region.
Mugambi remained a trusted supporter, advisor, and source of inspiration to KHRC and the broader human rights community. He was the chief strategist for the Angaza Movement, a governance-sector initiative that promoted rights-based, transformative engagement before and after the 2022 general elections.
He was also the lead convenor of “Simba 8”, a forum of eight revolutionary human rights defenders. Just three weeks before his demise, despite his health, Mugambi hosted an online conversation on the state of the nation, which demonstrated his resilience and enduring commitment to the struggle.
Mugambi’s legacy will live on in the movements he strengthened, the ideas he shaped, and the courage he inspired. Comrade, rest in power!
The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) strongly condemns the violent disruption of a prayer service at Witima ACK Church in Othaya, Nyeri, on January 25, 2026.
Video footage and eyewitness accounts show police officers firing tear gas and live ammunition, placing the lives of worshippers, including children, in grave danger.
These actions directly violate a High Court order issued in June 2025 following a petition by KHRC. The order expressly prohibits law enforcement officers from firing live ammunition, deploying tear gas, or attacking hospitals, ambulances, emergency medical centres, and places of worship.
The same ruling, delivered by Justice Bahati Mwamuye, further bars the use of tear gas, chemical agents, water cannons, or any crowd-control measures against unarmed persons seeking refuge in vehicles, enclosed or semi-enclosed spaces, poorly ventilated areas, or with limited means of safe and orderly exit.
Places of worship are protected spaces under the law and must never be targets of police violence. The events at Witima ACK Church must be independently and thoroughly investigated, and all those responsible, clearly identified in available footage, must be held accountable.
KHRC further calls for accountability under the principle of command responsibility for officers who knew, or should have known, of these violations and failed to prevent them, as a necessary step to halt the escalating pattern of police violence.
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.