Clarifying the Role of Public Statements in Prosecutorial Decisions
Chief Justice Martha Koome has taken a firm stance to distance herself from the use of her public remarks by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in justifying terrorism charges against protesters involved in anti-government demonstrations on June 25 and July 7. Her comments highlight the importance of ensuring that legal decisions are based on solid evidence rather than public discourse.
In a statement released on Wednesday, CJ Koome emphasized that her remarks were specifically related to the arson attack on the Kikuyu Law Courts on June 25. She clarified that these statements should not be interpreted as an endorsement of terrorism charges in other protest-related cases. The Chief Justice explained that her comments were made following a targeted, organized attack on a court and adjacent government offices, which was different from general protests or demonstrators.
Koome stated that during her visit to the scene on June 26, she had received preliminary security briefings indicating that the attackers were individuals brought in from outside Kikuyu with the intent to destroy the court and nearby public property. She reiterated that her remarks were not a blanket statement about all protests but were specific to the incident at hand.
The Chief Justice also reaffirmed the independence of the DPP under Article 157(10) of the Constitution. She stressed that prosecutorial decisions must be grounded in credible evidence and the law, and not influenced by public statements, even those made by the highest judicial authority.
This clarification follows the DPP’s recent release of a statement defending the decision to charge several protestors under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). The DPP cited Koome’s earlier comments as support for their claim that the acts in question constituted terrorism. According to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), the protests on June 25 and July 7 involved the vandalism or torching of courts, police stations, and other government buildings, which they described as “calculated and coordinated acts of violence” aimed at disrupting essential services and instilling fear.
However, this move has faced significant backlash from civil society and legal experts. A coalition of over 20 rights groups, including the Police Reforms Working Group (PRWG), criticized the charges as an abuse of anti-terror legislation. They expressed concern over the continued misuse of POTA in more than 100 other cases, warning that this trend threatens civil liberties and undermines Kenya’s credibility in global counterterrorism efforts.
In her statement, CJ Koome echoed concerns about the integrity of the criminal justice system. She referenced the principles agreed upon at the National Council on the Administration of Justice (NCAJ) meeting held on July 15. The council resolved that law enforcement must remain effective, accountable, and constitutionally anchored, while protecting civic space and the rights of human rights defenders.
“Our goal is a criminal justice system that remains true to the Constitution and serves the public interest,” Koome said. She assured Kenyans that the Judiciary is committed to fairness and the rule of law, stating that everyone brought before the courts, regardless of the charge, will be treated fairly and given a full and fair hearing.
The statement comes amid growing concerns within Kenya’s justice sector regarding the handling of recent unrest. As pressure mounts on state institutions, there is an increasing need to balance security imperatives with constitutional protections and human rights. This situation underscores the critical role of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that legal processes remain transparent and just.
