PS Omollo Affirms Right to Peaceful June 25 Protests, Warns Against Violence

The Principal Secretary for Internal Security, Raymond Omollo, recently reaffirmed the constitutional right to peaceful assembly and protest in Kenya, while simultaneously issuing a stern warning against any acts of violence or destruction during demonstrations. This statement underscores the delicate balance the state must maintain between upholding fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, and ensuring public order and safety. For legal practitioners, Omollo's remarks highlight the continuing tension between constitutional guarantees and the practical application of public order laws, particularly concerning police conduct and protester responsibilities. The directive to security agencies to protect both demonstrators and non-participating members of the public further emphasizes the state's dual obligation to facilitate rights while preventing anarchy, a critical area for legal scrutiny and advocacy.

In a significant pronouncement, Principal Secretary for Internal Security, Raymond Omollo, recently reiterated the government's commitment to upholding the constitutional right of Kenyans to engage in peaceful protests on June 25, 2026. This affirmation, however, was coupled with a resolute warning against any form of violence, destruction of property, or intimidation during such demonstrations. Omollo's statement, reported by Capital FM Kenya, explicitly instructed security agencies to safeguard both those participating in the protests and members of the public who opt not to join, highlighting the state's multifaceted responsibility in managing public assemblies.

This declaration comes amidst a backdrop of heightened political and social activism in Kenya, where public demonstrations have frequently been met with varying responses from law enforcement. The PS's emphasis on the right to protest, alongside the caveat against violence, sets a crucial tone for how future demonstrations are to be policed and perceived. For legal professionals, this statement necessitates a re-examination of the legal framework governing public assemblies, the permissible limits of state intervention, and the evolving jurisprudence on the right to protest in Kenya.

This article will delve into the constitutional and statutory underpinnings of the right to peaceful assembly in Kenya, analyze the implications of PS Omollo's statement in light of existing legal precedents and police conduct guidelines, and offer insights into the practical considerations for legal practitioners advising clients on matters related to public demonstrations.

The right to peaceful assembly and protest in Kenya is a fundamental freedom deeply entrenched in the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. Article 37 unequivocally states that "Every person has the right, peaceably and unarmed, to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket, and to present petitions to public authorities." This constitutional provision forms the bedrock upon which all public demonstrations are legally permissible. However, like many fundamental rights, it is not absolute. Article 24 of the Constitution allows for the limitation of rights and fundamental freedoms by law, provided such limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society.

Further regulation of public assemblies is provided by the Public Order Act (Chapter 56 of the Laws of Kenya). This Act requires individuals intending to convene a public meeting or procession to notify the regulating officer (police) at least three days, but not more than fourteen days, before the proposed date of the event. The Act grants the police powers to impose conditions on the time, place, and manner of assembly, or even to prevent a gathering, if there is a clear, present, or imminent danger of a breach of peace or public order. Historically, critics have argued that this Act has sometimes been used to restrict legitimate protests rather than merely regulate them.

The National Police Service Act, 2011, further defines the responsibilities and powers of the police, including their role in maintaining law and order during public assemblies. The Sixth Schedule of this Act emphasizes that police officers must always attempt to use non-violent means first, and force may only be employed when non-violent means are ineffective or without promise of achieving the intended result. This legislative framework collectively establishes the parameters within which the right to protest is exercised and managed in Kenya, aiming to strike a balance between individual freedoms and collective public safety.

PS Omollo's statement aligns with the constitutional requirement that protests must be conducted "peaceably and unarmed." The High Court, in cases such as *Ferdinand Waititu Ndugu v Attorney General & Others*, has affirmed that the right under Article 37 is not absolute and must be exercised peacefully, unarmed, and not on private property. This judicial interpretation underscores that any deviation from peaceful and unarmed conduct removes the protection afforded by Article 37, potentially rendering participants liable under the Public Order Act for unlawful assembly, which carries a penalty of imprisonment for one year.

The directive for security agencies to protect both protesters and non-protesters highlights the National Police Service's dual mandate. Under the National Police Service Act, the police are obligated to facilitate peaceful assemblies and ensure the protection of participants' rights. Concurrently, they must maintain public order and protect the lives and property of all citizens. Recent High Court rulings, particularly those issued since June 25, 2024, have further clarified acceptable police conduct during protests. These rulings emphasize that any violence against peaceful protesters is prohibited, and security agencies are temporarily prevented from using lethal and less-lethal ammunition, including water cannons, tear gas, and rubber bullets, against peaceful demonstrators.

Crucially, these judicial pronouncements have also reinforced accountability within the police service. Officers deployed to manage protests are required to wear visible name tags or service numbers, and the deployment of masked, plainclothes officers without identification has been prohibited. Furthermore, commanders and senior officers can be held individually liable for unlawful actions committed by officers under their command. This shift towards greater accountability seeks to address historical concerns regarding excessive force and impunity, which have often led to injuries and fatalities during protests. The challenge remains in the practical implementation of these guidelines, ensuring that police distinguish between violent elements and peaceful demonstrators, arresting only those engaged in criminal acts.

While the Public Order Act requires prior notification for protests, it is important to note that such notification is for coordination of public safety and does not constitute a request for permission. This distinction is vital in preventing the arbitrary denial of protest rights. Ongoing legislative debates, such as proposed amendments to the Public Order Act, seek to introduce further restrictions, including financial liabilities for organizers for damages incurred during protests and limitations on protest locations. These proposals, if enacted, could significantly impact the exercise of the right to protest and are subject to scrutiny for their alignment with constitutional and international human rights standards.

PS Omollo's statement serves as a timely reminder of the intricate legal landscape governing public protests in Kenya. For legal practitioners, advising clients on planned demonstrations requires a comprehensive understanding of Article 37 of the Constitution, the Public Order Act, and the National Police Service Act, alongside the evolving judicial interpretations. It is imperative to emphasize to organizers and participants the non-negotiable requirement for protests to remain peaceful and unarmed, as any deviation can lead to legal repercussions and undermine the constitutional protection.

Practitioners must also be vigilant in monitoring police conduct, ensuring adherence to the principles of proportionality, necessity, and accountability, particularly regarding the use of force and the identification of officers. The recent court orders mandating visible identification and restricting the use of certain crowd control measures against peaceful protesters provide crucial tools for advocating for clients' rights and challenging unlawful police actions. As Kenya continues to navigate its democratic space, the balance between the right to protest and the maintenance of public order will remain a critical area of legal development and engagement. Lawyers should prepare to challenge any attempts to unduly restrict these fundamental freedoms, while also advising clients on their responsibilities to ensure demonstrations remain within the bounds of the law.