In the tense aftermath of the June 25 nationwide youth-led anti-government protests, a new and deeply contentious flashpoint has emerged, igniting a fervent national debate over police powers and human rights. Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen's explicit directive to police, ostensibly sanctioning a "shoot on sight" approach against civilians attacking police stations, has drawn immediate and fierce condemnation from civil society, notably the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), who have termed the statement reckless and a dangerous precedent.
The controversial order was delivered by CS Murkomen during an address to residents in Kikuyu Constituency, Kiambu County, a region that witnessed significant chaos and attacks on public facilities during the recent protests. Amidst reports of police stations being targeted and firearms stolen, Murkomen's voice, though initially met with some jeers from the assembled crowd, rang clear: "Na tumeambia polisi mtu yeyote atakaribia police station piga yeye risasi" (And we have told the police, anyone who approaches a police station, shoot them). His rhetoric was further amplified by rhetorical questions aimed at justifying such extreme measures: "Mtu mwenye anaenda kuiba bunduki, abembelezwe?" (Should someone who goes to steal a gun be pleaded with?), to which some citizens retorted "Shika yeye" (Arrest them), prompting Murkomen to retort, "Bunduki sio mandazi!" (A gun is not a cake!), emphasizing the gravity of firearm theft.
These sentiments, broadcast widely, instantly triggered a torrent of criticism both online and offline. The public outcry was immediate, reflecting deep-seated concerns about potential extrajudicial killings and excessive force by law enforcement. Leading the offensive against the directive was the Law Society of Kenya, the country's most prominent legal body, which issued a strongly worded statement dismissing the CS's authority to issue such an operational command.
LSK President Faith Odhiambo minced no words in her rebuke. "The Cabinet Secretary has no authority under the law to issue such an order," she asserted, directly challenging the legality of Murkomen's directive. The lawyers' body proceeded to issue a stern and unequivocal warning to police officers, cautioning them against misusing their firearms under the guise of such commands. "Any unjustified act of aggression, disproportionate use of force, or extrajudicial killing carried out under such illegal directives will be deemed a premeditated crime," the LSK statement read, laying bare the grave legal consequences individual officers could face. The LSK concluded its powerful statement by explicitly cautioning the National Police Service that they are "legally prohibited from acting upon and complying with the ultra vires, illegal, and unconstitutional shoot-to-kill order." This firm stance by the LSK serves as a critical bulwark against potential abuses of power, reminding the police of their constitutional obligations that supersede illegal commands.
Following the immense backlash that erupted across social media platforms and traditional media outlets, CS Murkomen offered a clarification. While attending a graduation ceremony at the Border Police Training Campus in Kanyonyo, Kitui County, he sought to temper his earlier remarks. "Hatujasema itumiwe kiholela. Ile tunajaribu kuetetea ni polisi mwenye maisha yake iko hatarini na anaambiwa ukitumia utashtakiwa" (We have not said it should be used arbitrarily. What we are trying to defend is a police officer whose life is in danger and is told they will be prosecuted if they use it), Murkomen remarked. This clarification aimed to shift the narrative from an outright "shoot on sight" order to a defense of police officers acting in self-preservation, caught between life-threatening situations and potential legal repercussions.
However, the legal framework governing the use of firearms by the National Police Service remains clear and stringent. The Sixth Schedule of the National Police Service Act unequivocally outlines strict conditions, stipulating that firearms should only be employed when all other means are inadequate and only under circumstances that pose an immediate threat to life or serious injury. This legal standard fundamentally contradicts any blanket "shoot on sight" directive.
