A debate has erupted across the country following Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen’s recent remarks urging police to use their weapons when attacked or invaded by criminals. While some interpreted this as a call for a shoot-to-kill policy, the Ministry of Interior has since clarified that the CS did not issue such an order but rather reminded officers of their right to self-defense under the law.
Speaking at the Border Police Training Campus in Kanyonyo, Kitui County, CS Murkomen emphasized that police officers are well-trained and understand the boundaries of lawful use of force. “We are not telling police to misuse their weapons. We are defending their safety,” he said. A subsequent statement from the ministry reiterated that his advice was strictly in response to rising threats against police during criminal acts or attacks on stations.
According to the National Police Service Act (2011), officers are required to use peaceful and non-violent means such as dialogue or warnings—before resorting to force. However, the law permits the use of firearms when an officer’s life or that of a citizen is in immediate danger, during violent crimes such as armed robbery, or to prevent the escape of dangerous criminals from custody.
Article 18 of the Penal Code also supports use of reasonable force when apprehending individuals committing grave offences or resisting arrest. However, both laws stress proportionality and accountability in the use of force.
The Law Society of Kenya (LSK), however, condemned Murkomen’s remarks, terming them “reckless” and likely to embolden extrajudicial killings. LSK President Faith Odhiambo argued that the CS lacks the legal authority to issue operational directives to the police and warned officers against acting on such guidance. “Any unjustified act of aggression or disproportionate force will be deemed a premeditated crime,” she said.
While the government maintains that police must protect lives and property, it also stresses that public protests must remain peaceful. Once protests turn violent, involving looting or threats to life, they cease to be constitutionally protected.
Ultimately, the debate underscores the delicate balance between safeguarding public security and upholding human rights and the rule of law.
