Kenya Law Society Condemns National Police Service's Conduct During Protests

The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has vehemently condemned the National Police Service's conduct during the June 25 protests, specifically challenging the deployment of masked officers and alleged excessive force. This article examines the legal and constitutional implications of masked policing in Kenya, arguing that such practices undermine transparency, accountability, and fundamental human rights, including the right to peaceful assembly and the right to human dignity. It delves into relevant provisions of the Constitution of Kenya, the National Police Service Act, and the Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act, highlighting the existing framework for police conduct and oversight. The LSK's demands for an immediate ban on masked officers and prompt investigations into misconduct underscore a critical juncture for police reform and the upholding of the rule of law in Kenya.

The recent nationwide protests on June 25, 2026, have once again brought to the fore contentious issues surrounding police conduct during public demonstrations in Kenya. Following widespread reports of alleged constitutional violations, the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has issued a strong condemnation, specifically targeting the deployment of masked or unidentified police officers and the reported use of excessive force. The LSK has formally protested the conduct of members of the National Police Service (NPS), demanding an immediate ban on masked officers and thorough investigations into all allegations of misconduct.

The policing of public assemblies in Kenya is governed by a robust constitutional and statutory framework. The Constitution of Kenya, 2010, guarantees every person the right, peaceably and unarmed, to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket, and to present petitions to public authorities under Article 37. This right, while not absolute, can only be limited by law to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality, and freedom. Furthermore, Article 244 of the Constitution mandates the National Police Service to strive for the highest standards of professionalism and discipline, and to promote and practise transparency and accountability.

The National Police Service Act, 2011, provides the operational framework for the NPS, outlining the functions, powers, and obligations of police officers. While the Act details various aspects of police operations, it implicitly requires officers to be identifiable to ensure accountability. The Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) Act, 2011, established IPOA as a civilian oversight body to ensure police accountability, with powers to investigate deaths or serious injuries resulting from police action and to monitor the NPS to prevent impunity. Despite these safeguards, the Public Order Act (Cap. 56), which regulates public gatherings, has historically been criticised for provisions that can be used to restrict the right to peaceful assembly, such as notification requirements that have been exploited to stifle protests.

The LSK's demand to ban masked police officers during public order operations raises fundamental questions about police accountability and the rule of law. The Society argues that officers exercising police powers must be clearly identifiable to ensure transparency and accountability, and to facilitate investigations into complaints of misconduct. The deployment of officers with concealed identities directly undermines the principle of individual accountability, making it exceedingly difficult for victims or witnesses to identify perpetrators of alleged abuses. This practice frustrates the mandate of oversight bodies like IPOA, which relies on identifiable officers for effective investigations.

Moreover, the LSK has highlighted that the High Court has previously ruled against the deployment of masked officers during public order operations, underscoring the unconstitutionality of such practices. This judicial precedent reinforces the constitutional imperative for transparency within the National Police Service. The use of force by law enforcement officials is also subject to strict constitutional and international standards. The Constitution requires that any use of force be lawful, necessary, and proportionate, and only as a last resort. International instruments, such as the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, further stipulate that law enforcement officials should, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to force, and that force must be exercised with restraint and in proportion to the seriousness of the offence. Reports of roadblocks, arbitrary arrests, and excessive force during the June 25 protests, as cited by the LSK, suggest potential breaches of these principles.

The ongoing debate surrounding the proposed Assembly and Demonstration Bill, which reportedly includes a ban on face coverings at protests, further illustrates the tension between state control and fundamental rights. While the stated aim might be public order, such provisions, particularly when applied to police officers, must be carefully scrutinised to ensure they do not infringe upon the rights to privacy and expression, or, conversely, shield officers from accountability. The LSK's call for the Inspector General to issue immediate operational directives requiring full compliance with the Constitution, the National Police Service Act, and binding judicial decisions is a critical step towards re-establishing public confidence and ensuring constitutional policing.

The LSK's strong stance against masked police and unconstitutional policing during the June 25 protests serves as a vital reminder of the ongoing challenges in police reform and accountability in Kenya. The deployment of unidentified officers not only erodes public trust but also creates an environment ripe for impunity, directly contravening the constitutional principles of transparency and accountability. For legal practitioners, these developments underscore the importance of vigilant advocacy for human rights, particularly the rights to peaceful assembly and due process, and the need to actively challenge unconstitutional police practices.

Moving forward, legal professionals should closely monitor the National Police Service's response to the LSK's demands, including any internal investigations or disciplinary actions initiated by IPOA. The outcome of these efforts will be crucial in shaping the future of public order policing in Kenya. Furthermore, engagement with legislative processes, such as the proposed Assembly and Demonstration Bill, remains essential to ensure that any new laws align with constitutional guarantees and international human rights standards. The legal community has a critical role to play in ensuring that the constitutional promise of a police service that is professional, accountable, and respectful of human rights is fully realised.