Why Ruto's protest victims panel is facing legal challenges
Courts
By
Kamau Muthoni
| Oct 10, 2025
Families of victims killed during the 2024 Gen Z protests, after addressing the media at the August 7th Memorial Park, Nairobi, on June 20, 2025. [File, Standard]
The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) has opposed President William Ruto’s appointment of a panel of experts for compensation of protests victims.
The government’s human rights agency, in its response to a case filed by a Nakuru surgeon Magare Gikenyi and Eliud Matindi, a Kenyan based in the United Kingdom, argues that the appointment of the 17-member team violates the Constitution.
KNCHR’s chief executive Bernard Mogesa said the appointment was a usurpation of the agency’s work.
READ MORE
PS Muoria: Dual training turning youth into job creators, not job seekers
Freighters lobby in Sh10b deal to digitise logistics sector
Why IMF is yet to seal deal with Kenya
Old Mutual boss now joins ANCA leadership council
Battery cages or deep-litter floor for your layers?
Pay to pass:Treasury gives green light to Dongo Kundu tolling plan
General insurance claims ease as sector shows signs of recovery
State calls for advisers as it moves to open pipeline jewel to investors
Fintechs prioritise experience, financial education during customer service week
Dr Mogesa asserted that it would be a waste of money to have other persons do the same job cut out for the independent commission.
“The actions of the President of the Republic of Kenya to vest the panel of experts with the mandate to design and establish an operational framework to verify, categorize and compensate eligible victims is not only illegal but also not prudent use of public resources given that the said role clearly falls within the third respondent’s province as demonstrated herein above,” replied Mogesa.
He said that Dr Ruto’s actions were not based on the Constitution or the law, as the drafters of the Constitution envisioned that KNCHR would be an independent institution that ought to ensure that the government observes human rights, investigate violations and provide reparations.
Mogesa asserted that the panel cannot stand as the presidential proclamation and the subsequent gazette notice were constitutionally infirm.
President Ruto appointed Makau Mutua, Law Society of Kenya President Faith Odhiambo, Amnesty International–Kenya Executive Director Irungu Houghton, former solicitor general Kennedy Ogeto, John Olukuru, Kennedy Barasa Simiyu, Naini Lankas, Francis Muraya, Juliet Chepkemei, Pius Metto, Fatuma Kinsi Abass, Raphael Anampiu, Duncan Ojwang, Richard Barno, Duncan Ndeda, and Raphael Ng’etich to the panel.
The panel composition split the Law Society of Kenya, forcing Ms Odhiambo to resign months after taking up the appointment. When another case filed by the panel against lawyer Levi Minyeri was called out, lawyer Elisha Ongoya indicated that he would be on record for the society.
Kevin Michuki was the initial lawyer who had filed a reply on behalf of the society, backing lawyer Levy Munyeri’s argument that the panel’s application ought to be dismissed.
Michuki’s court papers and Ongoya’s presence in court on Tuesday, however, followed intrigues in the council that allegedly boiled all the way to Sunday.
Michuki filed his notice of appointment on September 29, 2025 and subsequently filed submissions dated October 3, 2025 to the effect that the society was urging the Court of Appeal to dismiss the application.
“We submit that the appellants have not disclosed in what manner the execution of the orders of the High Court will irreparably affect or negate their respective cores. It must be noted that the orders of the High Court were not directed at any of the appellants and as such their enforcement will not be against their persons and it would therefore not affect them,” Gichuki’s submissions read in part.
Ongoya and Wambola Advocates firm, however, filed a notice of change of service on Sunday, October 5, 2025, signalling that Michuki had been replaced as the LSK lawyer.
Ongoya’s law firm also filed a notice of withdrawal of the submissions that Michuki had filed before the court.
Ongoya said that the society would not take any position before the court, and would abide with any decision by the judges.