Three civil society organisations have moved to court seeking the removal of Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen from office following his recent shoot-to-kill directive to police officers.
In a petition filed at the High Court in Nairobi on Wednesday, July 2, the Katiba Institute, the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), and the Independent Medico-Legal Unit (IMLU) accuse Murkomen of violating the Constitution and abusing his office.
The lobby groups argue that Murkomen’s public orders to police officers to shoot protesters who approach police stations were unlawful and exceeded his constitutional mandate.
According to the petition, the CS overstepped his authority and infringed on the independence of the National Police Service, whose command, they said, lies with the Inspector-General of Police.
“The petitioners pray that a declaration be issued that by purporting to direct police officers in their line of duty, the Respondent acted ultra vires and in violation of Article 245(2)(b) of the Constitution,” reads part of the court filing.
They further contend that Murkomen’s remarks demeaned the dignity of his office and breached Article 75 of the Constitution, which outlines the conduct expected of state officers.
The organisations want the court to compel the Cabinet Secretary to issue a public retraction of his shoot-to-kill comments, both in a national newspaper and on a television station with wide coverage.
They are also seeking orders for compensation to victims harmed as a result of police action allegedly influenced by the CS’s directive.
“An order of incidental, consequential, and aggravated damages against the Respondent in favour of all individuals who have died or have been seriously injured as a result of police action, caused by a member of the police on duty or that which happened while in police custody from June 26, 2025, to the date of his retraction,” the petition states.
Murkomen’s remarks, made in the wake of the June 25 protests that saw several police stations attacked and firearms stolen, sparked widespread outrage from the public and human rights groups.
In an attempt to clarify his position, the CS later denied advocating for the reckless use of firearms by police officers.
“We have not said that they should use it recklessly,” Murkomen said in a televised address on Saturday. “We are just trying to protect officers whose lives are in danger, and they are being told not to use their guns because they will be charged.”
He added, “If that officer dies, how will they be charged?”
Despite the clarification, the petitioners maintain that Murkomen’s comments could have emboldened officers to use excessive force during protests, resulting in unnecessary deaths and injuries.
The case is now set to test the extent of Cabinet-level responsibility in matters of policing and the interpretation of constitutional limits on executive powers.
