1. Brian Oniang’o and William Akhala Omulele, aged 22 and 24 years old respectively, were in their house on 20/7/2023 at Nyalenda Estate, Kisumu resting after having had their lunch, when police officers in riot gear stormed their house, dragged them out to the road, assaulted them with clubs and kicks and left them for dead.
2. The two were taken to Jaramogi Oginga Odinga Teaching and Referral Hospital (JOOTRH) where they succumbed to those injuries on 26th and 29th July, 2023, respectively.
3. On 19/7/2023 at about 6.30pm, Charles Kiwendo (‘3rd Petitioner’) sent his son Joshua Lucas Kiwendo aged 17 years to buy provisions for supper. He never returned. The following morning, the 3rd petitioner traced him in Ward 5 at Kisumu County Referral Hospital. His son informed him that he had been shot in the left scrotum by a Police Officer. The young Kiwendo would later on 26/11/2023 succumb to complications arising out of the gunshot.
4. Edith Adhiambo Ooro (‘4th Petitioner’) was the wife of Benard Ochieng Otana. On 13/7/2023, she returned home to prepare lunch for her family but found that her husband had stepped out to buy food. He never returned. His body would later be traced at Nightngale Hospital in Kondele with a gunshot at the back. The Post Mortem Report prepared on 14/7/2023 revealed that he died due to extensive haemorrhage due to gunshot.
5. On 21/7/2023 at about 4.30pm, Joseph Anyama Midawe received a call from one Caleb Amimo that his son one George Odhiambo Anyama had been shot by Police Officers near Kisumu Medical Education Trust. He later traced the body of his son at JOOTRH. The death was confirmed to have resulted from excessive haemorrhage secondary to penetrating abdominal injury following gunshot wounds.
6. On 19/7/2023 at about 5.00pm, Nerisha Juma Ouma (‘6th Petitioner’) was at home when she received a call to the effect that her nephew, one David Ochieng Ouma had been shot near Nyando River Bridge in Ahero. She later confirmed his demise at JOOTRH on 20/7/2023. The Post Mortem Report confirmed that he had died out of extensive haemorrhage secondary to gun wound.
7. Willian Onyango Otieno (‘deceased’) was a tuk tuk driver along Ahero-Kisumu route. On 19/7/2023, he left home for work but never returned. His father, Benson Onyango Owaa 7th petitioner would later, on 22/7/2023, trace his body at JOOTRH mortuary with a gunshot wound to the left side of his neck. A Post Mortem Report dated 25/7/2023 revealed that he died of excessive bleeding due to gunshot.
8. On 12/7/2023, Peter Otieno Adoyo called one Wilson Omondi Aduke from Nightngale Hospital and informed him that he had been beaten unconscious by Police Officers. His brother, Robert Ouko Adongo (‘8th Petitioner’) rushed there but found that Adoyo had been transferred to JOOTRH. Reaching there, he found him in excruciating pain. Adoyo narrated to him the terror that had been unleashed on him by Police Officers. He succumbed to the injuries the following morning. The cause of death was opined to be circulatory collapse secondary to extensive soft tissue injuries following assault.
9. Frank Opiyo Odhiambo (‘deceased’) was a carpenter in Kondele making coffins. On 19/7/2023 at around mid-day, he was with his co-workers around Nildeep area when police officers in uniform threw teargas at them. They hid at Lexo Petrol Station. Once the teargas smoke had subsided, they sought to leave but a Police Officer shot him dead. Lynda Akoth Aol (‘PW 2’ and the ‘9th Petitioner’) would later find his body at Port Florence Otonglo Mortuary. A Post Mortem report revealed that he died due to extensive haemorrhage due to gunshot wound.
10. On 20/7/2023, Margaret Abongo Onyango, aged 16 years was sent by her elder sister to go and buy tomatoes from a grocery shop. A few meters from her home, she met police officers running towards her direction. She turned to run away but was shot and fell down. Her mother Mary Atieno Onyango (“10th petitioner”) later found her at Howic Nursing Home where a rubber bullet was extracted from her right clavicle area. Her disability index was assessed at 5% by Dr. Neema Mbaruku (‘PW 4’).
11. On 20/7/2023 at about 2.00pm, Brighton Onyango Ochieng (“11th petitioner”) then 17 years old, was playing football with his friends on a murram road within Nyalenda ‘A’ Estate, Kisumu. Chaos erupted and each one scampered to safety. Unfortunately for him, he was shot at the back and forearm. He lost consciousness and was admitted at JOOTRH for 1 week. PW 4 assessed his disability at 10% for the lung and 15% for the hand and forearm.
12. Clinton Otieno aka Bill Clinton Otieno (“12th petitioner”) was a boda boda operator. On 7/7/2023 at about 3.00pm, he dropped a customer in Kisumu town and was returning to Nyalenda ‘A’ where he was residing when he found a group of people on the road. Police officers charged at the crowd and he was shot in right forearm. He sustained a fracture and other injuries to the chest and right thigh. He was admitted at JOOTRH for 10 days before being discharged.
13. Joseph Odhiambo Oywer (“13th petitioner”) was a bicycle transport provider from Patel Estate. On 20/7/2023 at about 4.00pm, he was cycling back home to Nyamasaria. On reaching Kachok roundabout, he met a crowd running away from Police officers. He continued riding his bicycle past both the crowd and the police officers. After passing the said officers, he was shot on the right leg toes. He was treated at JOOTRH and had one of his toes amputated as a result of the gunshot wounds. The degree of his disability was assessed at 5%.
14. David Omondi Okoth, (“14th petitioner”) a holder of Diploma in Engineering and working as a freelance general worker in construction sites, travelled from Thika in Mid-July, 2023 to Mowlem Kisumu to inspect a family property. On 20/7/2023, he stepped out to buy airtime from a shop located within the premises. Suddenly, a police vehicle appeared cruising at a high speed. It stopped and two police officers stepped out and shot at him. One bullet hit him on the lower chest wall tearing the diaphragm and perforated the colon. He was treated at Avenue Health Care where the bullet was extracted. His disability was assessed at 30%.
15. On 14/7/2023, Harbaty Mangala Muyeshi (“15th petitioner”) went to work at Mamboleo. However, since his work mates did not turn up, he decided to go back home to Polyview Estate at 10.30am. However, the motorbike rider carrying him refused to go past Somali base along Kakamega road because of the demonstrations ahead. He therefore alighted and decided to go through Kondele. He encountered police officers at Kondele flyover and started to run towards Kondele roundabout. The police shot him twice on both of his lower limbs. He was rushed to JOOTRH where he was admitted for two weeks while undergoing treatment. His disability index was estimated at 25%.
16. On 20/3/2023 at about6:00pm, Shalmon Otieno Odoyo, (16th petitioner”) an apprentice mechanic left his place of work at Jua Kali area, Kisumu town and headed to Nyaori Centre, his home. On reaching Kachok roundabout, he saw a group of people running from behind with police officers in hot pursuit. He was shot a few metres from his home and fell down. He was later treated at JOOTRH where it was confirmed that he had suffered a gunshot wound on the left leg with the bullet exiting from the front. His disability index was assessed at 5%.
17. On 28/3/2023 at about 8.30pm, Steve Biko Obongo (“17th petitioner”) had just left a construction site at Nyamasaria and was headed home. On reaching Nyalenda, Nyaori Centre, he decided to buy food when he saw people running towards him from the main road with two armed police officers in hot pursuit. He also started running away when he was shot on the right leg. He was admitted at JOOTRH for treatment for 2 weeks. His disability index was assessed at 20%.
18. Evans Owino Aila “(18th petitioner”) is a billing officer at Maxcure Hospital. On 6/7/2023, he reported for night duty at Mega City and signed out the following morning of 7/7/2023. He picked up his motorbike and headed home to Chulaimbo. On the way, he picked up his friend one Washington Ochieng Owino. On reaching Otonglo Bridge, he met a group of about 10 police officers who waived him down. The police assaulted him and ordered him to remove stones that were blocking the road. On starting to remove the stones, one of the officers shot him on the left thigh. He was rushed to Masaba Hospital for emergency attention. He was later treated at his workplace and his disability index was assessed at 5%.
19. Kenneth Omondi Owiti (‘PW1’ and “19th petitioner”) is a clinical officer at Saimex Medicare, Kuria West, Migori County. On 20/7/2023 at about 6.48pm, he stepped out with his and a neighbour’s daughter to get provision for supper. While at the gate to his premises, he saw a contingent of armed police officers. One of them shouted at him and shot him on the left upper limb. He was rushed to Migori County Referral Hospital. A qualified Surgeon had to be sourced from Kisii County to come and operate on him. A bullet was found to have lodged behind his spine. He was discharged on 26/7/2023 and his disability index was assessed at 30%.
20. On 17/7/2023 at about 4.00pm, while at Nyamasaria near Butter Toast, Daniel Ouma Obare (“20th petitioner”) had purchased airtime from a shop and was walking home. Suddenly, a land cruiser stopped and police officers alighted. They lobbed tear gas on anyone on sight. One aimed and shot at him shuttering his left jaw. He was admitted at JOOTRH where the bullet was extracted from his mandible and handed over to IPOA. Due to financial constraints, he is yet to undergo surgical fixation and implants.
21. The 21st Petitioner is Alice Aoko Okembo, the mother to ROO a 17 year old boy. On 12/7/2023 at about 11.00am, ROO left his sister’s house in Membe and was walking home to Obunga. On reaching Kondele flyover, he encountered police officers who shot him on the left upper limb. He was admitted to JOOTRH and discharged on 25/7/2023. Subsequently, he was admitted on various days to repair the severed vein. His disability index was assessed at 30%.
22. On 21/7/2023, Daniel Ochanda Owiti (“22nd petitioner”) was at home with his family. At about 2.30pm, 4 police officers stormed his house, clobbered him and left him for dead. He visited Pandpieri Hospital on 24/7/2023 where he was treated. His disability index was estimated at 10%.
23. Karilus Akacha Raphael (“23rd petitioner”) is a resident of Nyalenda Western Estate in Kisumu Town. On 21/7/2023 at about 10.00am, he went to his friend’s house within the same estate for a friendly chat. At about 1.30pm while his friend’s wife was preparing lunch, a group of 7 police officers broke down the gate, entered the compound dragged him outside and clobbered him. He was left with a fractured right lower limb which was casted twice at JOOTRH.
24. Christopher Ototo Odero of Nyalenda Estate Kisumu is the 24th Petitioner. On 19/7/2023 at about 2.00pm, he was walking along Nyalenda-Kachok road when he was shot by a Police Officer and suffered gunshots on both thighs of the lower limbs. He was treated of gunshots at JOOTRH.
25. Dennis Ochieng Obwao (“25th petitioner”) a tuk tuk driver, boarded a motorcycle to go home on 27/3/2023 at 3.00pm. On reaching Kisumu Boys roundabout near Ahero Mowuok stage along Kisumu-Nairobi Highway, Police officers appeared, threw teargas and opened indiscriminate gun shots. Obwao was shot on the chest, taken to Howic Nursing Home in Nyalenda and then transferred to JOOTRH. He underwent surgical operation to extract the bullet and was admitted thereat until 10/4/2023.
26. Brian Obiero Oliyo (“26th petitioner”) was a student at Kisumu National Polytechnic. On 20/7/2023, he was in his house revising for KNEC exams slated for the following day when at about 6.30pm, Police Officers stormed the house and flashed him out. They clobbered him outside his house then asked him to go back. They left him nursing his wounds. Good Samaritans took him to Howic Hospital and thereafter JOOTRH for treatment. He suffered femoral fracture and traverse patella fracture. He ended up with the right knee deformity with 5% disability index.
27. Joseph Oballah Ongiri the 27th Petitioner was a resident of Nyamasaria Estate within Manyatta ‘B’, Kisumu. On 21/7/2023, at about 2.00pm, he stepped out to go and buy water for his family. He saw a motor bike with two pillion passengers riding towards him. When they neared him, one of the pillion passengers drew a gun and shot him. The rider turned back and the two pillion passengers hopped into a Police Landcruiser which sped off. Ongili was rushed to JOOTRH where he was operated on to remove the bullet. He remained in hospital until 24/7/2023. His disability index was assessed at 10% by PW 4 who examined him on 19/7/2024.
28. Amos Oduor Oteng’o (“28th petitioner”), a resident of Carwash Estate in Kisumu was at home on 19/7/2023. At about 4.30pm he left home and headed to Kona Mbuta-Manyatta road for Mpesa services. However, he found all shops closed. He headed to Kisumu-Kibos road trying to get an Mpesa shop that was open but found none. While returning home, police officers pursued him and shot him in the abdomen. He was rushed to JOOTRH where the live bullet was removed from his abdomen. He remained in hospital until 25/7/2023. His disability index was assessed at 25%.
29. All that is narrated above is not from any blockbuster movie or any warfront. It is actual events that took place in Migori, Kisumu and Ahero, areas between the months of March and July, 2023 during public demonstrations against the high cost of living dubbed the “Azimio Maandamano”.
30. Amidst these chaos, one person with her colleagues never lost sight of their calling. Dorcas Akinyi Oluoch, (“29th petitioner”) the LSK Chair, Kisumu Chapter, in exercise of their mandate under section 4 of the Law Society of Kenya Act and in public interest, led her members in collecting data, monitoring the operations of the members of the 2nd respondent and offered pro-bono services where needed to the victims.
31. She coordinated in interviewing the victims of the police brutality, offered psycho-socio support to the victims, engaged Dr. Peter Machuri (Pw5) and Dr. Neema Mbaruku (Pw4) to interpret the medical records for the victims. She coordinated in obtaining consents from the petitioners for the lodgment of the present Petition. She communicated with IPOA and other relevant bodies with a view to assisting the victims including the petitioners. She also appeared at the trial as Pw6, having been given authority to appear and plead by and for all the petitioners, and testified. She adopted the contents of all their affidavits and was cross-examined on them. The firm of M. M. Omondi & Company Advocates was finally instructed to lodge the present Petition.
32. By the Petition dated 30/8/2024, all that is narrated above was pleaded in detail and supported by affidavits of all the petitioners. It was brought against the 1st respondent (Inspector General of Police), 2nd respondent (the National Police Service ‘NPS’), the Attorney General and the 4th respondent (IPOA), respectively.
33. It was alleged that the respondents had breached and violated the fundamental rights and freedoms of the petitioners. In particular, it was alleged that the 1st and 2nd respondent had contravened Article 244 of the Constitution of Kenya and the National Police Service Act (‘NPS Act’) on the use of force. That their officers used excessive force against the petitioners and more so, the minors involved.
34. It was further alleged that the 4th respondent had abdicated its statutory role of giving effect to Article 244. That although information was sought from it under Article 35 of the Constitution of Kenya, on the level of its investigation, it failed to supply the same or even respond to the subsequent reminders. As a result, the petitioners right to institute appropriate action for appropriate remedies was compromised.
35. It was further contended that none of the petitioners were demonstrators. That they were either shot at or clobbered while going on with their daily chores. That the officers of the 2nd respondent breached the law as to the use of force as none of the petitioners was armed. That the 4th respondent had taken forever to carry any investigations while it is required to do so promptly, and in any event, within 90 days.
36. For the foregoing reasons, it was contended that, the petitioners right to life, right to the security of the person, right to information, right to fair administrative action, right to protection of children from all forms of violence had been infringed by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondent. That the law on the lawful use of force by Police Officers was violated. Various declarations were therefore sought against the respondents as well as damages for compensation.
37. The interested parties filed affidavits in support of the petition. Vincent Chahale, the Country Director of the 1st interested party swore an affidavit on 28/2/2025. He stated that the police had responded to peaceful demonstrations with excessive and disproportionate force against unarmed civilians including innocent bystanders. This led to loss of life and serious injuries and widespread violations of fundamental rights. That the 2nd respondent was obligated to respect human rights within constitutional and statutory limits and ensure public order without resorting to excessive force.
38. That on the directions of the 1st respondent, the officers of the 2nd respondent responded to the protests with the full force of the police leading to the death of the 1st to 9th petitioners and serious injuries to the 10th to 28th petitioners. That the 1st interested party facilitated medical treatment to the petitioners. He produced a victim Impact Statement which detailed the psychological impact assessment of the petitioners prepared by a professional counsellor.
39. Dr. Benard Mogesa, the Chief Executive Officer of the 2nd interested party swore an affidavit on 26/2/2025 in support of the Petition. After setting out the mandate of the KNHRC, he stated how his Commission monitored the demonstrations. That it observed that the agents of the 1st and 2nd respondent were lobbying tear gas, using batons to assault members of the public and demonstrators and opened gun fire indiscriminately including forcefully pulling people from their homes and assaulting them.
40. He further deposed that the Commission documented human rights violations including, the right to life, right to freedom and security of the person, right to peaceably and unarmed assemble, freedom from torture and cruel inhuman and degrading treatment. It documented a total of 113 victims from Kisumu, Migori, Kisii and Siaya Counties. Of these, 16 were deaths and 91 were cases of injuries committed by agents of the 1st and 2nd respondent. He produced various exhibits to support his allegations.
41. Katiba Institute, the 3rd interested party, through Emily Kihama supported the Petition through an affidavit sworn on 9/2/2025. She averred that during the period in question, the 1st and 2nd respondent systematically targeted, maimed and killed inhabitants of Kisumu and its environs in a well -coordinated terror campaign in the name of Public Order Management, the end of which was tears, blood and death.
42. That the officers of the 1st and 2nd respondent acted in breach of the Constitution, the NPS Act and the Police Standing Orders in the use of force during Public Order Management. It accused the 4th respondent of failing in its duty to investigate the complaints made against the agents of the 1st and 2nd respondent.
43. Amnesty International, the 4th interested party, supported the Petition vide the replying affidavit of Irungu Hougton sworn on 29/1/2025. He averred that it is the hostile response of the 1st respondent to the protests that set the stage for what became an extremely intolerant and violent police response to the protests.
44. That the police violently suppressed the protests by shooting with lethal ammunition, excessive use of tear gas, assault by use of batons and pursuing the fleeing public to their homes, forcibly removing them therefrom and assaulting them. That between March and July, 2023, the Police killed a total of 31 people through unnecessary use of excessive force in utter disregard of the principles of necessity and proportionality. That the Police violated both the Constitution and International Human Rights Standards.
45. Clement Nyaletsossie Voule and Thomas Probert appeared as Amicus Curiae. They supplied the Court with a brief on International Human Rights law applicable to the use of force in the context of the policing of assemblies and the subsequent duty to investigate. The principles enunciated therein were novel and guided the Court a great deal in the determination of this petition.
46. The 1st to 3rd respondent opposed the Petition vide Grounds of Opposition dated 5/8/2025. They contended that the Petition had failed to establish with precision the specific acts or omissions allegedly committed by the said respondents. That it failed to meet the threshold set out in the case of Anarita Karimi Njeru vs Republic (1979) KLR 154. That there was no evidence directly linking the alleged injuries or deaths to the 1st and 2nd respondent.
47. That the Petition improperly attributed collective responsibility to the NPS and its command structure without proof of individual culpability of the 1st respondent. That the actions of the police, was lawful and in accordance with the NPS Act sections 24, 58, 61 and 62 and the Constitution of Kenya and the Public Order Act Cap 56 and the NPS (Use of force and Fire Arms) Regulations 2014, respectively. That their actions were in public interest.
48. That any injuries or deaths were unfortunate results of violent unlawful and uncontrolled protests rather than out of deliberate or excessive police conduct. That the Petitioners had failed to exhaust the available mechanisms for redress including the IPOA. That the allegations were generalized speculative and lacked evidentiary foundation. That it was an attempt to unduly interfere with the operational independence of the 1st respondent as guaranteed under Article 245 (2) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya.
49. That the reliefs are incapable of being granted in the absence of specific proof of wrongdoing by the 1st respondent. That there was no factual or evidential basis to make the declarations sought. That the Petition offended the principle of separation of powers and institutional accountability as it sought the Court to micromanage operational and security decisions constitutionally reserved for the Police Service. That the Petition was contrary to public interest as it undermined the lawful authority of the NPS to maintain law and order. That the Petition should therefore be dismissed.
50. The 4th respondent opposed the Petition vide the replying affidavit of Raphael Nyina, an Assistant Director Investigation with IPOA sworn on 29/1/2025. He stated that under the IPOA Act, the 4th respondent is mandated to conduct investigations into complaints related to disciplinary or criminal offences committed by members of the NPS. That on receipt of complaints, it commenced investigations relating to allegations of excessive use of force by police officers during the Azimio demonstrations in Kisumu and its environs between March and July, 2023.
51. As at the time of swearing the said affidavit, IPOA was conducting investigations with regard to all the Petitioners save for the 10th, 16th and 18th Petitioners. It was denied that any of the complainants were turned away as contended by the petitioners. That IPOA took up investigations upon the complaints lodged as well as on its own motion. Copies of statements by the victims were produced in support of those assertions.
52. It was further asserted that the public was kept abreast of the investigations through various media stations and that IPOA had engaged the Law Society of Kenya on the investigations on 10/8/2024.
53. On the assertion by the 29th Petitioner on its conduct, it was averred that she did not identify the specific person she was acting for and that the information sought was confidential. That the investigations were complex having taken place during public disorder. There were large number of victims and there was difficulty in identifying the perpetrators.
54. That there was no statute of limitation on investigations as similar investigations during the post-election chaos of 2017 took time but were finally concluded and a file forwarded to the DPP in 2021 and prosecution in NBI Criminal Case No. E074 of 2022 R vs Titus Yoma & 11 Others was ongoing.
55. It was averred that the investigations were still ongoing and once concluded, appropriate recommendations would be made. That IPOA should be left to conclude its investigations. That in conclusion, the reliefs sought against IPOA should not issue as it had already commenced investigations.
56. The petitioners paraded 5 witnesses whose testimonies are captured above as well as the testimony of the 4th respondent’s witness. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents and all the other parties did not call any witness.
Submissions
57. The parties filed their respective submissions that are on record. Mr. M. M. Omondi learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petition met the constitutional test/threshold outlined in the cases of Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] eKLR, Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance [2013] eKLR, Communications Commission of Kenya v Royal Media Services [2014] eKLR and more recently in Kanchory v Service & 3 others; Law Society of Kenya & another (Interested Parties) [2025] KEHC 13792 (KLR). That it set out the pleaded violations, clearly articulated how each of these standards was breached in the specific incidents presented.
58. That in resolving the issues presented, this Court ought to be guided by the transformative nature of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which requires courts to interpret and develop the law in a manner that most favours the enforcement of rights while Article 24 strictly limits any permissible limitation of rights.
59. That a holistic and purposive constitutional interpretation is required as Article 259(1) commands that the Constitution be construed in a manner that promotes its purposes, values and principles as affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Equity Bank Limited v West Link Mbo Limited [2013] eKLR.
60. That contrary to contention by the 1st – 3rd respondent that the Petitioners had failed to exhaust the available statutory mechanisms for redress and that the reliefs sought in the Petition were untenable and incapable of being granted, it was submitted that under Article 22 of the Constitution, any person has the right to approach Court to seek enforcement of fundamental rights and the existence of alternative remedies does not limit or exclude this constitutional right.
61. That the Court of Appeal had in Sharma v Attorney General & 3 Others (Civil Appeal E065 of 2023) [2025] KECA 1470 (12 September 2025) (KLR) emphasized that, constitutional remedies are independent of criminal investigations.
62. That the 1st respondent had command and control of all operation units nationwide during the subject protests and was bound by the general International Law Principle of Command Responsibility and ought to take responsibility for the actions of his subordinates who caused the deaths of the 1st – 9th petitioners. This was because he either ordered the perpetuation of excessive force, tolerated it or tacitly issued directions to officers within his command to shoot to kill and/or maim the peaceful demonstrators.
63. That the principle of Command Responsibility is part of the general principle under International Law and it is therefore binding on the 1st and 2nd respondent by virtue of Article 2 (5) of the Constitution of Kenya. The case of Republic v The University of Nairobi Ex Parte Michael Jacobs Odhiambo & 7 Others (2016) eKLR was relied on this proposition.
64. That there must have been an Operation Order prepared by the 1st respondent to guide the members of the 2nd respondent who were carrying out operations during the peaceful protests. That the 1st respondent failed and neglected to discharge his obligations under Articles 244 and 245 of the Constitution and Sections 8, 8A and 10 of the National Police Service Act in that he failed to uphold the highest possible standards of professionalism and discipline among the members of the 2nd respondent and to foster and promote good relations between them and the petitioners.
65. That the officers of the 2nd respondent used excessive, arbitrary, unreasonable, lethal force and unlawfully killed the 1st – 9th petitioners and maimed 19 petitioners thus violating Article 26 of the Constitution. That the 1st and 2nd respondent acted heavy-handedly, disproportionately, unprofessionally, unlawfully and unconstitutionally in the handling of peaceful protesters and thereby violated the petitioners’ fundamental rights and freedoms.
66. That the members of the 2nd respondent used excessive force on the petitioners contrary to the National Police Service Act No. 11 A of 2011 under section 61 (2) and the Sixth Schedule which provides instances when there can be use of force. That in the present case, the use of force was uncalled for especially as some of the petitioners were minors.
67. The petitioners relied on the case of Attorney-General & 2 Others v Ndii & 79 Others; Dixon & 7 Others (Amicus Curiae) (Petition 12, 11 & 13 of 2021 (Consolidated) (2022) KESC 8 (KLR) (31 March 2022) (Judgment) for the proposition that constitutional or statutory bodies must
[...truncated]
2. The two were taken to Jaramogi Oginga Odinga Teaching and Referral Hospital (JOOTRH) where they succumbed to those injuries on 26th and 29th July, 2023, respectively.
3. On 19/7/2023 at about 6.30pm, Charles Kiwendo (‘3rd Petitioner’) sent his son Joshua Lucas Kiwendo aged 17 years to buy provisions for supper. He never returned. The following morning, the 3rd petitioner traced him in Ward 5 at Kisumu County Referral Hospital. His son informed him that he had been shot in the left scrotum by a Police Officer. The young Kiwendo would later on 26/11/2023 succumb to complications arising out of the gunshot.
4. Edith Adhiambo Ooro (‘4th Petitioner’) was the wife of Benard Ochieng Otana. On 13/7/2023, she returned home to prepare lunch for her family but found that her husband had stepped out to buy food. He never returned. His body would later be traced at Nightngale Hospital in Kondele with a gunshot at the back. The Post Mortem Report prepared on 14/7/2023 revealed that he died due to extensive haemorrhage due to gunshot.
5. On 21/7/2023 at about 4.30pm, Joseph Anyama Midawe received a call from one Caleb Amimo that his son one George Odhiambo Anyama had been shot by Police Officers near Kisumu Medical Education Trust. He later traced the body of his son at JOOTRH. The death was confirmed to have resulted from excessive haemorrhage secondary to penetrating abdominal injury following gunshot wounds.
6. On 19/7/2023 at about 5.00pm, Nerisha Juma Ouma (‘6th Petitioner’) was at home when she received a call to the effect that her nephew, one David Ochieng Ouma had been shot near Nyando River Bridge in Ahero. She later confirmed his demise at JOOTRH on 20/7/2023. The Post Mortem Report confirmed that he had died out of extensive haemorrhage secondary to gun wound.
7. Willian Onyango Otieno (‘deceased’) was a tuk tuk driver along Ahero-Kisumu route. On 19/7/2023, he left home for work but never returned. His father, Benson Onyango Owaa 7th petitioner would later, on 22/7/2023, trace his body at JOOTRH mortuary with a gunshot wound to the left side of his neck. A Post Mortem Report dated 25/7/2023 revealed that he died of excessive bleeding due to gunshot.
8. On 12/7/2023, Peter Otieno Adoyo called one Wilson Omondi Aduke from Nightngale Hospital and informed him that he had been beaten unconscious by Police Officers. His brother, Robert Ouko Adongo (‘8th Petitioner’) rushed there but found that Adoyo had been transferred to JOOTRH. Reaching there, he found him in excruciating pain. Adoyo narrated to him the terror that had been unleashed on him by Police Officers. He succumbed to the injuries the following morning. The cause of death was opined to be circulatory collapse secondary to extensive soft tissue injuries following assault.
9. Frank Opiyo Odhiambo (‘deceased’) was a carpenter in Kondele making coffins. On 19/7/2023 at around mid-day, he was with his co-workers around Nildeep area when police officers in uniform threw teargas at them. They hid at Lexo Petrol Station. Once the teargas smoke had subsided, they sought to leave but a Police Officer shot him dead. Lynda Akoth Aol (‘PW 2’ and the ‘9th Petitioner’) would later find his body at Port Florence Otonglo Mortuary. A Post Mortem report revealed that he died due to extensive haemorrhage due to gunshot wound.
10. On 20/7/2023, Margaret Abongo Onyango, aged 16 years was sent by her elder sister to go and buy tomatoes from a grocery shop. A few meters from her home, she met police officers running towards her direction. She turned to run away but was shot and fell down. Her mother Mary Atieno Onyango (“10th petitioner”) later found her at Howic Nursing Home where a rubber bullet was extracted from her right clavicle area. Her disability index was assessed at 5% by Dr. Neema Mbaruku (‘PW 4’).
11. On 20/7/2023 at about 2.00pm, Brighton Onyango Ochieng (“11th petitioner”) then 17 years old, was playing football with his friends on a murram road within Nyalenda ‘A’ Estate, Kisumu. Chaos erupted and each one scampered to safety. Unfortunately for him, he was shot at the back and forearm. He lost consciousness and was admitted at JOOTRH for 1 week. PW 4 assessed his disability at 10% for the lung and 15% for the hand and forearm.
12. Clinton Otieno aka Bill Clinton Otieno (“12th petitioner”) was a boda boda operator. On 7/7/2023 at about 3.00pm, he dropped a customer in Kisumu town and was returning to Nyalenda ‘A’ where he was residing when he found a group of people on the road. Police officers charged at the crowd and he was shot in right forearm. He sustained a fracture and other injuries to the chest and right thigh. He was admitted at JOOTRH for 10 days before being discharged.
13. Joseph Odhiambo Oywer (“13th petitioner”) was a bicycle transport provider from Patel Estate. On 20/7/2023 at about 4.00pm, he was cycling back home to Nyamasaria. On reaching Kachok roundabout, he met a crowd running away from Police officers. He continued riding his bicycle past both the crowd and the police officers. After passing the said officers, he was shot on the right leg toes. He was treated at JOOTRH and had one of his toes amputated as a result of the gunshot wounds. The degree of his disability was assessed at 5%.
14. David Omondi Okoth, (“14th petitioner”) a holder of Diploma in Engineering and working as a freelance general worker in construction sites, travelled from Thika in Mid-July, 2023 to Mowlem Kisumu to inspect a family property. On 20/7/2023, he stepped out to buy airtime from a shop located within the premises. Suddenly, a police vehicle appeared cruising at a high speed. It stopped and two police officers stepped out and shot at him. One bullet hit him on the lower chest wall tearing the diaphragm and perforated the colon. He was treated at Avenue Health Care where the bullet was extracted. His disability was assessed at 30%.
15. On 14/7/2023, Harbaty Mangala Muyeshi (“15th petitioner”) went to work at Mamboleo. However, since his work mates did not turn up, he decided to go back home to Polyview Estate at 10.30am. However, the motorbike rider carrying him refused to go past Somali base along Kakamega road because of the demonstrations ahead. He therefore alighted and decided to go through Kondele. He encountered police officers at Kondele flyover and started to run towards Kondele roundabout. The police shot him twice on both of his lower limbs. He was rushed to JOOTRH where he was admitted for two weeks while undergoing treatment. His disability index was estimated at 25%.
16. On 20/3/2023 at about6:00pm, Shalmon Otieno Odoyo, (16th petitioner”) an apprentice mechanic left his place of work at Jua Kali area, Kisumu town and headed to Nyaori Centre, his home. On reaching Kachok roundabout, he saw a group of people running from behind with police officers in hot pursuit. He was shot a few metres from his home and fell down. He was later treated at JOOTRH where it was confirmed that he had suffered a gunshot wound on the left leg with the bullet exiting from the front. His disability index was assessed at 5%.
17. On 28/3/2023 at about 8.30pm, Steve Biko Obongo (“17th petitioner”) had just left a construction site at Nyamasaria and was headed home. On reaching Nyalenda, Nyaori Centre, he decided to buy food when he saw people running towards him from the main road with two armed police officers in hot pursuit. He also started running away when he was shot on the right leg. He was admitted at JOOTRH for treatment for 2 weeks. His disability index was assessed at 20%.
18. Evans Owino Aila “(18th petitioner”) is a billing officer at Maxcure Hospital. On 6/7/2023, he reported for night duty at Mega City and signed out the following morning of 7/7/2023. He picked up his motorbike and headed home to Chulaimbo. On the way, he picked up his friend one Washington Ochieng Owino. On reaching Otonglo Bridge, he met a group of about 10 police officers who waived him down. The police assaulted him and ordered him to remove stones that were blocking the road. On starting to remove the stones, one of the officers shot him on the left thigh. He was rushed to Masaba Hospital for emergency attention. He was later treated at his workplace and his disability index was assessed at 5%.
19. Kenneth Omondi Owiti (‘PW1’ and “19th petitioner”) is a clinical officer at Saimex Medicare, Kuria West, Migori County. On 20/7/2023 at about 6.48pm, he stepped out with his and a neighbour’s daughter to get provision for supper. While at the gate to his premises, he saw a contingent of armed police officers. One of them shouted at him and shot him on the left upper limb. He was rushed to Migori County Referral Hospital. A qualified Surgeon had to be sourced from Kisii County to come and operate on him. A bullet was found to have lodged behind his spine. He was discharged on 26/7/2023 and his disability index was assessed at 30%.
20. On 17/7/2023 at about 4.00pm, while at Nyamasaria near Butter Toast, Daniel Ouma Obare (“20th petitioner”) had purchased airtime from a shop and was walking home. Suddenly, a land cruiser stopped and police officers alighted. They lobbed tear gas on anyone on sight. One aimed and shot at him shuttering his left jaw. He was admitted at JOOTRH where the bullet was extracted from his mandible and handed over to IPOA. Due to financial constraints, he is yet to undergo surgical fixation and implants.
21. The 21st Petitioner is Alice Aoko Okembo, the mother to ROO a 17 year old boy. On 12/7/2023 at about 11.00am, ROO left his sister’s house in Membe and was walking home to Obunga. On reaching Kondele flyover, he encountered police officers who shot him on the left upper limb. He was admitted to JOOTRH and discharged on 25/7/2023. Subsequently, he was admitted on various days to repair the severed vein. His disability index was assessed at 30%.
22. On 21/7/2023, Daniel Ochanda Owiti (“22nd petitioner”) was at home with his family. At about 2.30pm, 4 police officers stormed his house, clobbered him and left him for dead. He visited Pandpieri Hospital on 24/7/2023 where he was treated. His disability index was estimated at 10%.
23. Karilus Akacha Raphael (“23rd petitioner”) is a resident of Nyalenda Western Estate in Kisumu Town. On 21/7/2023 at about 10.00am, he went to his friend’s house within the same estate for a friendly chat. At about 1.30pm while his friend’s wife was preparing lunch, a group of 7 police officers broke down the gate, entered the compound dragged him outside and clobbered him. He was left with a fractured right lower limb which was casted twice at JOOTRH.
24. Christopher Ototo Odero of Nyalenda Estate Kisumu is the 24th Petitioner. On 19/7/2023 at about 2.00pm, he was walking along Nyalenda-Kachok road when he was shot by a Police Officer and suffered gunshots on both thighs of the lower limbs. He was treated of gunshots at JOOTRH.
25. Dennis Ochieng Obwao (“25th petitioner”) a tuk tuk driver, boarded a motorcycle to go home on 27/3/2023 at 3.00pm. On reaching Kisumu Boys roundabout near Ahero Mowuok stage along Kisumu-Nairobi Highway, Police officers appeared, threw teargas and opened indiscriminate gun shots. Obwao was shot on the chest, taken to Howic Nursing Home in Nyalenda and then transferred to JOOTRH. He underwent surgical operation to extract the bullet and was admitted thereat until 10/4/2023.
26. Brian Obiero Oliyo (“26th petitioner”) was a student at Kisumu National Polytechnic. On 20/7/2023, he was in his house revising for KNEC exams slated for the following day when at about 6.30pm, Police Officers stormed the house and flashed him out. They clobbered him outside his house then asked him to go back. They left him nursing his wounds. Good Samaritans took him to Howic Hospital and thereafter JOOTRH for treatment. He suffered femoral fracture and traverse patella fracture. He ended up with the right knee deformity with 5% disability index.
27. Joseph Oballah Ongiri the 27th Petitioner was a resident of Nyamasaria Estate within Manyatta ‘B’, Kisumu. On 21/7/2023, at about 2.00pm, he stepped out to go and buy water for his family. He saw a motor bike with two pillion passengers riding towards him. When they neared him, one of the pillion passengers drew a gun and shot him. The rider turned back and the two pillion passengers hopped into a Police Landcruiser which sped off. Ongili was rushed to JOOTRH where he was operated on to remove the bullet. He remained in hospital until 24/7/2023. His disability index was assessed at 10% by PW 4 who examined him on 19/7/2024.
28. Amos Oduor Oteng’o (“28th petitioner”), a resident of Carwash Estate in Kisumu was at home on 19/7/2023. At about 4.30pm he left home and headed to Kona Mbuta-Manyatta road for Mpesa services. However, he found all shops closed. He headed to Kisumu-Kibos road trying to get an Mpesa shop that was open but found none. While returning home, police officers pursued him and shot him in the abdomen. He was rushed to JOOTRH where the live bullet was removed from his abdomen. He remained in hospital until 25/7/2023. His disability index was assessed at 25%.
29. All that is narrated above is not from any blockbuster movie or any warfront. It is actual events that took place in Migori, Kisumu and Ahero, areas between the months of March and July, 2023 during public demonstrations against the high cost of living dubbed the “Azimio Maandamano”.
30. Amidst these chaos, one person with her colleagues never lost sight of their calling. Dorcas Akinyi Oluoch, (“29th petitioner”) the LSK Chair, Kisumu Chapter, in exercise of their mandate under section 4 of the Law Society of Kenya Act and in public interest, led her members in collecting data, monitoring the operations of the members of the 2nd respondent and offered pro-bono services where needed to the victims.
31. She coordinated in interviewing the victims of the police brutality, offered psycho-socio support to the victims, engaged Dr. Peter Machuri (Pw5) and Dr. Neema Mbaruku (Pw4) to interpret the medical records for the victims. She coordinated in obtaining consents from the petitioners for the lodgment of the present Petition. She communicated with IPOA and other relevant bodies with a view to assisting the victims including the petitioners. She also appeared at the trial as Pw6, having been given authority to appear and plead by and for all the petitioners, and testified. She adopted the contents of all their affidavits and was cross-examined on them. The firm of M. M. Omondi & Company Advocates was finally instructed to lodge the present Petition.
32. By the Petition dated 30/8/2024, all that is narrated above was pleaded in detail and supported by affidavits of all the petitioners. It was brought against the 1st respondent (Inspector General of Police), 2nd respondent (the National Police Service ‘NPS’), the Attorney General and the 4th respondent (IPOA), respectively.
33. It was alleged that the respondents had breached and violated the fundamental rights and freedoms of the petitioners. In particular, it was alleged that the 1st and 2nd respondent had contravened Article 244 of the Constitution of Kenya and the National Police Service Act (‘NPS Act’) on the use of force. That their officers used excessive force against the petitioners and more so, the minors involved.
34. It was further alleged that the 4th respondent had abdicated its statutory role of giving effect to Article 244. That although information was sought from it under Article 35 of the Constitution of Kenya, on the level of its investigation, it failed to supply the same or even respond to the subsequent reminders. As a result, the petitioners right to institute appropriate action for appropriate remedies was compromised.
35. It was further contended that none of the petitioners were demonstrators. That they were either shot at or clobbered while going on with their daily chores. That the officers of the 2nd respondent breached the law as to the use of force as none of the petitioners was armed. That the 4th respondent had taken forever to carry any investigations while it is required to do so promptly, and in any event, within 90 days.
36. For the foregoing reasons, it was contended that, the petitioners right to life, right to the security of the person, right to information, right to fair administrative action, right to protection of children from all forms of violence had been infringed by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondent. That the law on the lawful use of force by Police Officers was violated. Various declarations were therefore sought against the respondents as well as damages for compensation.
37. The interested parties filed affidavits in support of the petition. Vincent Chahale, the Country Director of the 1st interested party swore an affidavit on 28/2/2025. He stated that the police had responded to peaceful demonstrations with excessive and disproportionate force against unarmed civilians including innocent bystanders. This led to loss of life and serious injuries and widespread violations of fundamental rights. That the 2nd respondent was obligated to respect human rights within constitutional and statutory limits and ensure public order without resorting to excessive force.
38. That on the directions of the 1st respondent, the officers of the 2nd respondent responded to the protests with the full force of the police leading to the death of the 1st to 9th petitioners and serious injuries to the 10th to 28th petitioners. That the 1st interested party facilitated medical treatment to the petitioners. He produced a victim Impact Statement which detailed the psychological impact assessment of the petitioners prepared by a professional counsellor.
39. Dr. Benard Mogesa, the Chief Executive Officer of the 2nd interested party swore an affidavit on 26/2/2025 in support of the Petition. After setting out the mandate of the KNHRC, he stated how his Commission monitored the demonstrations. That it observed that the agents of the 1st and 2nd respondent were lobbying tear gas, using batons to assault members of the public and demonstrators and opened gun fire indiscriminately including forcefully pulling people from their homes and assaulting them.
40. He further deposed that the Commission documented human rights violations including, the right to life, right to freedom and security of the person, right to peaceably and unarmed assemble, freedom from torture and cruel inhuman and degrading treatment. It documented a total of 113 victims from Kisumu, Migori, Kisii and Siaya Counties. Of these, 16 were deaths and 91 were cases of injuries committed by agents of the 1st and 2nd respondent. He produced various exhibits to support his allegations.
41. Katiba Institute, the 3rd interested party, through Emily Kihama supported the Petition through an affidavit sworn on 9/2/2025. She averred that during the period in question, the 1st and 2nd respondent systematically targeted, maimed and killed inhabitants of Kisumu and its environs in a well -coordinated terror campaign in the name of Public Order Management, the end of which was tears, blood and death.
42. That the officers of the 1st and 2nd respondent acted in breach of the Constitution, the NPS Act and the Police Standing Orders in the use of force during Public Order Management. It accused the 4th respondent of failing in its duty to investigate the complaints made against the agents of the 1st and 2nd respondent.
43. Amnesty International, the 4th interested party, supported the Petition vide the replying affidavit of Irungu Hougton sworn on 29/1/2025. He averred that it is the hostile response of the 1st respondent to the protests that set the stage for what became an extremely intolerant and violent police response to the protests.
44. That the police violently suppressed the protests by shooting with lethal ammunition, excessive use of tear gas, assault by use of batons and pursuing the fleeing public to their homes, forcibly removing them therefrom and assaulting them. That between March and July, 2023, the Police killed a total of 31 people through unnecessary use of excessive force in utter disregard of the principles of necessity and proportionality. That the Police violated both the Constitution and International Human Rights Standards.
45. Clement Nyaletsossie Voule and Thomas Probert appeared as Amicus Curiae. They supplied the Court with a brief on International Human Rights law applicable to the use of force in the context of the policing of assemblies and the subsequent duty to investigate. The principles enunciated therein were novel and guided the Court a great deal in the determination of this petition.
46. The 1st to 3rd respondent opposed the Petition vide Grounds of Opposition dated 5/8/2025. They contended that the Petition had failed to establish with precision the specific acts or omissions allegedly committed by the said respondents. That it failed to meet the threshold set out in the case of Anarita Karimi Njeru vs Republic (1979) KLR 154. That there was no evidence directly linking the alleged injuries or deaths to the 1st and 2nd respondent.
47. That the Petition improperly attributed collective responsibility to the NPS and its command structure without proof of individual culpability of the 1st respondent. That the actions of the police, was lawful and in accordance with the NPS Act sections 24, 58, 61 and 62 and the Constitution of Kenya and the Public Order Act Cap 56 and the NPS (Use of force and Fire Arms) Regulations 2014, respectively. That their actions were in public interest.
48. That any injuries or deaths were unfortunate results of violent unlawful and uncontrolled protests rather than out of deliberate or excessive police conduct. That the Petitioners had failed to exhaust the available mechanisms for redress including the IPOA. That the allegations were generalized speculative and lacked evidentiary foundation. That it was an attempt to unduly interfere with the operational independence of the 1st respondent as guaranteed under Article 245 (2) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya.
49. That the reliefs are incapable of being granted in the absence of specific proof of wrongdoing by the 1st respondent. That there was no factual or evidential basis to make the declarations sought. That the Petition offended the principle of separation of powers and institutional accountability as it sought the Court to micromanage operational and security decisions constitutionally reserved for the Police Service. That the Petition was contrary to public interest as it undermined the lawful authority of the NPS to maintain law and order. That the Petition should therefore be dismissed.
50. The 4th respondent opposed the Petition vide the replying affidavit of Raphael Nyina, an Assistant Director Investigation with IPOA sworn on 29/1/2025. He stated that under the IPOA Act, the 4th respondent is mandated to conduct investigations into complaints related to disciplinary or criminal offences committed by members of the NPS. That on receipt of complaints, it commenced investigations relating to allegations of excessive use of force by police officers during the Azimio demonstrations in Kisumu and its environs between March and July, 2023.
51. As at the time of swearing the said affidavit, IPOA was conducting investigations with regard to all the Petitioners save for the 10th, 16th and 18th Petitioners. It was denied that any of the complainants were turned away as contended by the petitioners. That IPOA took up investigations upon the complaints lodged as well as on its own motion. Copies of statements by the victims were produced in support of those assertions.
52. It was further asserted that the public was kept abreast of the investigations through various media stations and that IPOA had engaged the Law Society of Kenya on the investigations on 10/8/2024.
53. On the assertion by the 29th Petitioner on its conduct, it was averred that she did not identify the specific person she was acting for and that the information sought was confidential. That the investigations were complex having taken place during public disorder. There were large number of victims and there was difficulty in identifying the perpetrators.
54. That there was no statute of limitation on investigations as similar investigations during the post-election chaos of 2017 took time but were finally concluded and a file forwarded to the DPP in 2021 and prosecution in NBI Criminal Case No. E074 of 2022 R vs Titus Yoma & 11 Others was ongoing.
55. It was averred that the investigations were still ongoing and once concluded, appropriate recommendations would be made. That IPOA should be left to conclude its investigations. That in conclusion, the reliefs sought against IPOA should not issue as it had already commenced investigations.
56. The petitioners paraded 5 witnesses whose testimonies are captured above as well as the testimony of the 4th respondent’s witness. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents and all the other parties did not call any witness.
Submissions
57. The parties filed their respective submissions that are on record. Mr. M. M. Omondi learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petition met the constitutional test/threshold outlined in the cases of Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] eKLR, Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance [2013] eKLR, Communications Commission of Kenya v Royal Media Services [2014] eKLR and more recently in Kanchory v Service & 3 others; Law Society of Kenya & another (Interested Parties) [2025] KEHC 13792 (KLR). That it set out the pleaded violations, clearly articulated how each of these standards was breached in the specific incidents presented.
58. That in resolving the issues presented, this Court ought to be guided by the transformative nature of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which requires courts to interpret and develop the law in a manner that most favours the enforcement of rights while Article 24 strictly limits any permissible limitation of rights.
59. That a holistic and purposive constitutional interpretation is required as Article 259(1) commands that the Constitution be construed in a manner that promotes its purposes, values and principles as affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Equity Bank Limited v West Link Mbo Limited [2013] eKLR.
60. That contrary to contention by the 1st – 3rd respondent that the Petitioners had failed to exhaust the available statutory mechanisms for redress and that the reliefs sought in the Petition were untenable and incapable of being granted, it was submitted that under Article 22 of the Constitution, any person has the right to approach Court to seek enforcement of fundamental rights and the existence of alternative remedies does not limit or exclude this constitutional right.
61. That the Court of Appeal had in Sharma v Attorney General & 3 Others (Civil Appeal E065 of 2023) [2025] KECA 1470 (12 September 2025) (KLR) emphasized that, constitutional remedies are independent of criminal investigations.
62. That the 1st respondent had command and control of all operation units nationwide during the subject protests and was bound by the general International Law Principle of Command Responsibility and ought to take responsibility for the actions of his subordinates who caused the deaths of the 1st – 9th petitioners. This was because he either ordered the perpetuation of excessive force, tolerated it or tacitly issued directions to officers within his command to shoot to kill and/or maim the peaceful demonstrators.
63. That the principle of Command Responsibility is part of the general principle under International Law and it is therefore binding on the 1st and 2nd respondent by virtue of Article 2 (5) of the Constitution of Kenya. The case of Republic v The University of Nairobi Ex Parte Michael Jacobs Odhiambo & 7 Others (2016) eKLR was relied on this proposition.
64. That there must have been an Operation Order prepared by the 1st respondent to guide the members of the 2nd respondent who were carrying out operations during the peaceful protests. That the 1st respondent failed and neglected to discharge his obligations under Articles 244 and 245 of the Constitution and Sections 8, 8A and 10 of the National Police Service Act in that he failed to uphold the highest possible standards of professionalism and discipline among the members of the 2nd respondent and to foster and promote good relations between them and the petitioners.
65. That the officers of the 2nd respondent used excessive, arbitrary, unreasonable, lethal force and unlawfully killed the 1st – 9th petitioners and maimed 19 petitioners thus violating Article 26 of the Constitution. That the 1st and 2nd respondent acted heavy-handedly, disproportionately, unprofessionally, unlawfully and unconstitutionally in the handling of peaceful protesters and thereby violated the petitioners’ fundamental rights and freedoms.
66. That the members of the 2nd respondent used excessive force on the petitioners contrary to the National Police Service Act No. 11 A of 2011 under section 61 (2) and the Sixth Schedule which provides instances when there can be use of force. That in the present case, the use of force was uncalled for especially as some of the petitioners were minors.
67. The petitioners relied on the case of Attorney-General & 2 Others v Ndii & 79 Others; Dixon & 7 Others (Amicus Curiae) (Petition 12, 11 & 13 of 2021 (Consolidated) (2022) KESC 8 (KLR) (31 March 2022) (Judgment) for the proposition that constitutional or statutory bodies must
[...truncated]