High Court Fixes October 27 Mention in Petition Seeking Removal of CS Kipchumba Murkomen Over ‘Shoot‑to‑Kill’ Remarks

The Triggering Remarks

On June 26, 2025, addressing a crowd in Kikuyu Town in Kiambu County, CS Murkomen stated: “Anyone coming near a police station, shoot them. Anyone.” The comments followed deadly anti‑government protests, in which over ten people reportedly died.

The statement was widely understood as a directive to police officers to use lethal force on civilians who approached police stations. Civil society groups interpreted it as encouraging extrajudicial killings.

 Constitutional Petition Filed — July 2

On July 2, 2025, the Katiba Institute, Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), Independent Medico‑Legal Unit (IMLU), and others, including the Gema Watho Association, filed a petition at Milimani High Court. They argue:

• The CS’s remarks constitute incitement to violence, prohibited under Article 33(2) of the Constitution.

• They violate constitutional rights including Article 26 (right to life), Article 28 (human dignity), and Article 37 (peaceful assembly). 

• Murkomen overstepped his legal authority, as command of the police lies with the Inspector‑General, per Article 245(2)(b) and relevant National Police Service Act provisions.

• He violated national values and ethics under Article 10 and the Public Officer Ethics Act. 

The petition also cites the 2022 Katiba Institute High Court ruling (Constitutional Petition 379 of 2017), which struck down key provisions of the National Police Service Act that allowed lethal force to protect property. Murkomen, petitioners argue, relied on those same unconstitutional provisions. 

Among the remedies sought:

• A declaration that Murkomen is unfit to serve as Cabinet Secretary for Interior.

• A mandatory public retraction at his own cost, via media.

• Compensation for any deaths or injuries tied to police actions since June 26.

• Mandatory orders compelling EACC to investigate, Attorney General to advise on removal, and an injunction restraining similar future directives.

 What the Court Decided

In today’s ruling, the High Court — represented variously by Justices Lawrence Mugambi and Bahati Mwamuye — declined to make any declarations of unfitness, holding that no concrete evidence links Murkomen’s remarks to actual police action or rights violations. As such, it deemed such orders premature. 

Instead, the court directed that the petition be mentioned again on October 27, 2025, before Justice Mwamuye, for further directions.

Reactions from Stakeholders

• The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) strongly condemned Murkomen’s remarks as reckless and constitutionally suspect, warning police officers acting on them may face criminal liability. 

• Several Members of Parliament, including opposition figures, have echoed concerns that such directives erode public trust in law enforcement and violate democratic policing standards. Notably, Raila Odinga described the remarks as “a big shame” and emphasized justice must follow due process. 

• Murkomen has defended his statement, claiming he was reiterating the law under the Police Act provisions. However, he has not publicly filed a court reply yet. 

Petition Scope, Legal Grounds & Interested Parties

The petition document, filed on July 1, 2025, details a host of constitutional breaches: Articles on rights, governance, law enforcement, oaths of office, and ethics. It calls out violations of Articles 1(3), 2, 10, 19, 21‑23, 33, 37, 38, 39, 47‑48, 50, 152‑153, 165, 245, 259, among others, including the Public Officer Ethics Act and National Police Service Act. 

Notable interested parties joined include:

• Transparency International – Kenya

• International Commission of Jurists (ICJ Kenya)

• Mathare Social Justice Centre, International Justice Mission, Haki Africa

• Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR)

• Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA)

 Analysis & Legal Implication

1. No judicial determination yet – The court has not ruled that Murkomen is unfit or abused his office; it only set a procedural mention date in October.

2. Legal threshold not met – Petitioners must prove a causal link between Murkomen’s statement and actual police misuse of force. As of now, that evidence is absent. 

3. Constitution on trial – The petition brings constitutional interpretation into sharp focus: can a Cabinet Secretary issue such directives? Must they respect the chain of command? And how do prior rulings shape permissible use of force? The upcoming hearing could clarify these ambiguities.

4. Political and public pressure intensifies – LSK, civil society, and political leaders continue to criticize Murkomen, tapping into broader concerns about accountability and the militarization of policing.

5. Precedential exposure – If the petition succeeds, the High Court may set strong precedent limiting executive influence over use-of-force policies. It could also confirm that public officers can be removed for constitutional infractions short of criminal sanction.

This case transcends one individual — it is a constitutional litmus test for Kenya’s democratic policing and institutional checks. With the October 27 mention hearing, the High Court will define whether public rhetoric — even without demonstrated harm — can, under the Constitution, render an officeholder unfit.

For Kenyans, the stakes are high: the decision may shape future limits on executive directives, reinforce the chain of command within police structures, and affirm that no one is above constitutional accountability.