Ruto must answer for sheltering war criminal, undermining the rule of law

When Kenya embraced multiparty democracy in the 1990s, it pledged a new allegiance—to constitutionalism, human rights and the rule of law.

When we enacted the 2010 Constitution, we reinforced that promise, declaring in Article 2(5) and (6) that the general rules of international law and treaties Kenya has ratified form part of our law.

This is not symbolic. It is binding. It means Kenya cannot be a haven for impunity, and it certainly cannot offer red-carpet treatment to alleged war criminals. Yet that is exactly what happened in February this year when Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, better known as Hemeti—the commander of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Sudan—was welcomed in Mombasa by none other than Kenya’s Deputy President and the Director General of the National Intelligence Service.

He was then escorted to State House, Mombasa, reportedly meeting President William Ruto. This was not a discreet diplomatic encounter. It was a brazen show of hospitality to a man sanctioned by the United Nations and widely accused of overseeing atrocities and ethnic cleansing in Sudan’s Darfur region. Hemeti’s RSF has been documented by the UN, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. His militia has burned villages, raped women and executed civilians in what many analysts now describe as a campaign of genocide. This is not up for debate. It is a matter of international concern—and legal record.

So, what does it say about the Kenyan state when its highest officials roll out the red carpet for such a figure? What message does it send when the RSF is given a platform at the Kenyatta International Convention Centre (KICC) in Nairobi, as happened openly and without shame? It sends the message that the Kenyan government under President Ruto is not just indifferent to international law—it is actively undermining it.

• .

  Keep Reading

• 
  President's conditional apology an insult to victims of State violence
• 
  Madaraka Day: Ruto tells Kenyans to dream big as Hustler Fund and NYOTA lift youth
• 
  Inside the silent settlement that saw Weston Hotel claim public land
• 
  President Ruto brings back Kazi Mtaani to give hope and jobs to youth

Let us be clear: President Ruto’s actions are not protected by the cloak of presidential immunity. Article 143(1) and (2) of the Constitution insulate the President from civil or criminal proceedings during their tenure—but this protection is not absolute. Article 143(4) explicitly states that “the immunity of the President under this Article shall not extend to a crime for which the President may be prosecuted under any treaty to which Kenya is party and which prohibits such immunity.” This clause was deliberately included to ensure that Kenya cannot become a safe haven for war criminals, nor can our President aid and abet them with impunity.

Kenya is a signatory to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Geneva Conventions, and multiple UN human rights treaties. All of these prohibit complicity in war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Under both our Constitution and international law, President Ruto’s welcome of Hemeti can reasonably be seen as an act of complicity—political, moral and potentially legal. Some may argue that this is diplomacy—that Kenya must engage all parties in the Sudan conflict. But this was no neutral mediation.

Mediation is conducted through structured peace processes under international auspices, not clandestine meetings behind closed doors or public receptions that confer legitimacy on a man facing international sanctions. We cannot continue to erode our constitutional foundations under the guise of realpolitik. Kenya must stand for something. If our Constitution and international treaties mean anything, then those who violate human rights must be held to account—regardless of their position. A President who undermines this principle is not above the law. It is time to consider bold legal and civic action.

First, a petition should be filed in the Kenyan courts seeking a declaratory judgment that President Ruto, in hosting Hemeti, violated Article 2(5), 2(6), and Chapter Four (the Bill of Rights) of the Constitution.

The petition should assert that the President’s actions constitute complicity in international crimes, and thus fall outside the immunity provided under Article 143. This would be a landmark case—testing the strength of Kenya’s constitutional values and the willingness of our judiciary to uphold them.

Second, we must escalate this issue internationally. Civil society and legal scholars should call upon the United Nations and the ICC to investigate whether President Ruto’s actions amount to aiding and abetting a sanctioned warlord. Diplomatic pressure must also be applied to Kenya from regional bodies.

Third, this must be a civic awakening. Kenyans must speak out—not in partisan outrage, but in principled resistance. This is about more than politics. It is about the moral direction of our republic. We cannot allow our institutions to be eroded by transactional alliances with warlords and sanctioned actors. We cannot allow Kenya’s standing in the world to be so casually squandered.

The consequences of inaction are severe. If we allow impunity to take root at the highest levels, we lose our moral authority. We risk becoming a country that harbours criminals instead of protecting victims. We risk becoming the very thing we fought so hard to overcome.

President Ruto must be held accountable—not because he is an adversary, but because he is the President. Because he is bound by a constitution that demands accountability. Because no one, not even the Head of State, can be allowed to trade Kenya’s principles for personal or political gain. Kenya has come too far to turn back now. The world is watching—and history will remember.