A major legal setback has struck President William Ruto’s administration as the Kerugoya High Court temporarily halted the formation of a panel tasked with compensating victims of public protests and demonstrations. This comes after concerns were raised about the legality of the panel’s creation, with Justice Magare Kizito issuing a conservatory order on Monday, September 8, 2025, blocking the panel from beginning its operations.
The panel was appointed to establish a framework for compensating victims of demonstrations, public protests, and riots. However, the court’s order prevents the panel from commencing its mandate pending further legal proceedings. The judge also halted the implementation of the gazette notice that formally established the panel, citing the ongoing challenge to its legality.
The decision follows a petition filed by lawyer Levi Munyeri, who argued that the formation of the panel was unlawful. The court directed that the respondents, including the State Law Office and the Cabinet Secretary for Interior and Coordination of the National Government, refrain from initiating any compensation processes until the case is heard and determined.
The case centers on whether the President’s establishment of the compensation panel on August 25, 2025, was done within the confines of the law. Munyeri’s petition questions the authority under which the panel was created, sparking this legal standoff. The court has set a timeline for responses from the government parties involved, with a mention scheduled for October 6, 2025, for further directions.
This ruling is a significant blow to the compensation initiative that was part of President Ruto’s broader plan to address grievances arising from past demonstrations and public unrest. The panel’s work, which had been expected to begin soon after its swearing-in, is now indefinitely delayed as the case proceeds through the courts.
The court’s intervention underscores the ongoing legal scrutiny over President Ruto’s executive actions and their compliance with constitutional and legal procedures. This case has drawn attention to the delicate balance between executive powers and judicial oversight in Kenya’s governance.
