President William Ruto has instructed the police to employ a specific, seemingly paradoxical, use of force against individuals found engaging in criminal activities during protests. His words, delivered during an inspection of a Police Housing project in Kilimani, have reverberated across the nation: "Wasimuuwe lakini wapige miguu ivunjike" – loosely translating to, "They should not kill him but they should shoot the legs until they break." This directive aims to deter looting and destruction of property while, in the President's view, preventing fatalities.
President Ruto's stance is unequivocal: he cannot accept a Kenya where individuals steal and destroy other people's businesses and property. "We want peace in Kenya, people to do business. A person who is going to burn another person's business and property, such a person should be shot in the legs, taken to the hospital and then to court," he stated. His emphasis is on upholding justice for law-abiding citizens and ensuring a peaceful environment where economic activity can thrive. While stressing that police must not kill innocent civilians, he firmly believes that "criminals must be dealt with in accordance with the law."
The President's reasoning centers on a perceived need to differentiate between legitimate protesters exercising their constitutional rights and "criminals" who exploit demonstrations to engage in vandalism, arson, and looting. For Ruto, the destruction of property is an affront to the economic stability and hard work of Kenyans. "Is there really justice there?" he challenged, in reference to such acts. His directive, therefore, attempts to strike a delicate balance: a firm, deterrent response to criminality that stops short of lethal force. The intent, he argues, is to incapacitate those engaged in destructive acts, ensuring their subsequent arrest, medical attention, and prosecution, rather than their death.
However, this directive has inevitably ignited a fervent national debate, drawing sharp criticism from various quarters, including human rights organizations, opposition figures, and a significant portion of the public. Critics argue that even a "shoot-to-injure" order carries immense risks, potentially leading to unintended fatalities, severe long-term injuries, and an escalation of violence. They highlight the practical difficulties for police officers operating in chaotic protest environments to precisely target non-lethal areas, and the inherent danger of authorizing the use of live ammunition, regardless of the intended target. The concern is that such orders can be misinterpreted or misused, leading to further human rights abuses.
Moreover, the debate touches upon the very nature of policing in a democratic society. While governments are tasked with maintaining law and order, human rights principles emphasize proportionality and the absolute necessity of preserving life. The use of live ammunition, even for non-lethal intent, is typically considered a measure of last resort, permissible only when there is a direct threat to life. The President's statement prompts critical questions about whether the destruction of property, however reprehensible, justifies such a level of force.
Past the "shoot-to-injure" directive, President Ruto also issued a stern warning to those he believes are orchestrating the unrest. He declared that leaders involved in "sponsoring violence" would face consequences, stating unequivocally, "We are coming after you, you cannot sponsor violence in the Republic of Kenya and expect to go scot free." This warning extends to all individuals involved in looting and torching businesses, including government property, signaling a comprehensive crackdown. Furthermore, he condemned attacks on police officers and security installations, categorizing them as "acts of terrorism" and "a direct declaration of war," raising the stakes in the government's rhetoric against violent elements within protests.
