Wiper Party leader Kalonzo Musyoka has strongly opposed the decision by the State to charge peaceful protesters with terrorism-related offences, calling it an excessive and dangerous use of legal power. Speaking at the Kahawa Law Courts during the arraignment of several protestors on Tuesday, Kalonzo argued that the charges brought under the Prevention of Terrorism Act were disproportionate and risked inflaming public sentiment.
“These young people do not belong to any terrorist group,” Kalonzo said, adding that while destruction of property was regrettable, it should not be equated to terrorism. He warned that invoking such a serious law whose penalty is no less than 30 years in prison was a misuse of prosecutorial powers and an attempt to silence dissent.
Kalonzo further criticized the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) for weaponizing the legal system against demonstrators who were exercising their constitutional rights. “The Act was never intended to target citizens engaging in peaceful protests,” he stated.
Defence lawyer Ndegwa Njiru echoed Kalonzo’s sentiments, questioning the constitutionality of the terrorism charges. He emphasized that the protests had been publicly notified under the Public Order Act and were protected by Article 37 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to assemble and demonstrate peacefully.
“Parliament envisaged limitations only when a right ceases to be justifiable in a free and democratic society,” Njiru argued, warning against criminalizing protest under broad legal interpretations.
However, the prosecution defended its stance, citing that the protestors allegedly targeted key government installations including a chief’s office, a court, and sub-county administration offices. They insisted that the charges met the evidentiary and public interest thresholds and were necessary to safeguard public safety and property.
“The right to prosecute is being exercised with humility,” the prosecution team stated.
The case has sparked intense debate, with civil society groups and legal experts calling for a more balanced approach that upholds the rule of law while protecting citizens’ democratic freedoms. The controversy highlights growing tensions over how the government responds to public dissent amid a politically charged atmosphere.
