President William Ruto has lashed out at a court decision barring the National Police Service from erecting roadblocks and using force during public protests, saying such measures are vital to protecting lives and property.
The President was reacting to a ruling issued by Justice Lawrence Mugambi, who granted conservatory orders stopping the Inspector General of Police from erecting roadblocks within Nairobi and its environs during protests. The orders were obtained by the Katiba Institute following the controversial July 7 Saba Saba demonstrations, which saw roads barricaded and protesters blocked from accessing Nairobi’s central business district.
Justice Mugambi ruled that the police actions had infringed on constitutional rights, particularly the freedoms of assembly, movement, and peaceful protest under Articles 37 and 39 of the Constitution.
“Pending the hearing of the application, a conservatory order is hereby issued restraining the Inspector General… from interfering in any way with the right to assemble, protest, or picket while peaceful and unarmed,” said the judge.
Speaking at State House on Wednesday, President Ruto expressed frustration over the ruling, arguing that law enforcement must be allowed to use tools like roadblocks, teargas, and water cannons to prevent violence and destruction.
“I saw that today someone in court said that the Inspector General should not set up roadblocks, should not use teargas or water cannons to protect property and lives — yet that person has police officers guarding them,” Ruto said.
He added that while the Constitution protects the right to protest, those rights end where the rights of others — such as the right to own property — begin.
The President further stated that anyone found vandalising property during protests should be shot in the leg, hospitalised, and then prosecuted.
During the Saba Saba protests, police reported 11 deaths and 63 injuries. However, the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights put the figures at 31 deaths and 107 injuries, also citing two enforced disappearances.
The court’s decision has sparked a debate on balancing constitutional freedoms with law and order in times of civil unrest.
