The High Court has issued a firm directive to Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja, ordering him to produce missing blogger Ndiagui Kiangui in court or provide a satisfactory explanation for his disappearance. Kiangui has been missing for ten days, raising concerns of a possible enforced disappearance.
Justice Chacha Mwita, presiding over the habeas corpus application, emphasized the urgency and gravity of the matter. “This is an application of habeas corpus touching on a Kenyan who is a human being,” he said. “I have taken into account the fact that the second applicant has not been found for 10 days and that the life of a citizen is in danger.”
The habeas corpus petition, a constitutional safeguard against unlawful detention, was filed after Kiangui vanished under unclear circumstances. His disappearance sparked public concern, especially among human rights defenders and digital rights advocates, who suspect that state agencies may be involved or complicit.
Justice Mwita directed that the application be served on all respondents by the close of business on Monday, with responses due within seven days. The court further scheduled an in-person mention of the matter for Tuesday at 11:00 a.m., during which IG Kanja must either present Kiangui or explain his absence to the court.
The judge’s remarks underscored the constitutional importance of protecting the life and liberty of every Kenyan citizen. He also signaled the court’s intent to take the matter seriously given the rising fears around enforced disappearances.
This development comes amid growing scrutiny of law enforcement practices in Kenya, particularly with regard to the rights of activists, bloggers, and whistleblowers. Civil society groups have consistently called for greater accountability and transparency from security agencies.
As the Tuesday deadline approaches, pressure mounts on the police to shed light on Kiangui’s fate. The court’s order represents a critical test of the government’s commitment to upholding human rights and due process. Kenyans across the country now wait anxiously for answers in a case that could have far-reaching implications for civil liberties in the digital era.
