IT expert Ndiangui awarded Sh5m over police raid, disappearance saga

The High Court has awarded IT expert Ndiangui Kinyagia Sh5 million after ruling that a police raid on his home, which preceded his disappearance during the June 2025 Gen Z protests, was unconstitutional.

In a judgment delivered by Justice Patricia Nyaundi on Tuesday, the court found that police violated Kinyagia’s rights by entering and searching his home and seizing his property without demonstrating that they had met the legal requirements for a warrantless search.

“General damages are awarded in the sum of Sh5 million, payable jointly by the first and second respondents (the Inspector General of Police and the Director of Criminal Investigations),” Justice Nyaundi ordered.

The judge also barred the Director of Public Prosecutions from prosecuting Kinyagia on the basis of investigations arising from the unlawful operation, finding that the criminal process could not be used to legitimise unconstitutional police conduct.

“Another prohibition is hereby issued barring the third respondent (DPP) from instituting any prosecution against the petitioner arising from the unconstitutional investigative process undertaken by the first and second respondents,” she ruled.

Justice Nyaundi declared that the police operation violated Kinyagia’s rights to privacy, property, dignity, freedom and security of the person, and freedom of movement.

“A declaration is hereby issued that the actions of the first and second respondents violated the petitioner’s rights to privacy, property, dignity, freedom, and security of the person, and freedom of movement,” she said.

The case arose after police officers went to Kinyagia’s residence on June 21, 2025, following investigations into an X post that officers considered inflammatory and seditious.

According to the judgment, the Directorate of Criminal Investigations had sought assistance from the Communications Authority of Kenya to analyse and preserve material associated with the account before officers proceeded to Kinyagia’s home.

The officers remained at the premises for much of the day while attempting to reach him.

After failing to get a response, they forcibly entered the house and seized various items, leaving an inventory with the caretaker.

Kinyagia, having learnt that police were at his home and apprehensive for his safety, went into hiding.

His disappearance later triggered a habeas corpus application after his family sought help from the Law Society of Kenya.

Justice Nyaundi rejected the police argument that their actions were protected by their investigative mandate, saying they had failed to demonstrate why they could dispense with a search warrant.

“Having invoked Section 60 as a source of their authority, it was incumbent upon them to demonstrate by evidence that the circumstances prescribed by that provision existed. They have not done so,” she said.

The judge said Section 60 of the National Police Service Act was a constitutional safeguard requiring officers conducting warrantless searches to give reasons for bypassing the requirement for a warrant.

“Section 60 of the National Police Service Act is not a declarative provision. It is a constitutional safeguard given statutory form,” she said.

Justice Nyaundi further found that the manner in which police exercised their authority at Kinyagia’s home was accompanied by force calculated to inspire fear.

“The citizen should not be made to tremble at the institution to which the Constitution has entrusted his or her protection,” she said.

She said Kinyagia’s fear was a rational response to the police conduct and amounted to an unlawful restriction of his freedom of movement.

“On the evidence before the court, this fear is neither fanciful nor speculative. It is a rational response to the Respondents’ conduct,” she said.

On the prosecution, Justice Nyaundi said the independence of the DPP was not absolute and could not shield an unconstitutional process from judicial scrutiny.

“Independence is not a license for constitutional defiance,” she ruled.

The judge said police had acted first and only later sought legal justification for their conduct.

“The police did not first obtain lawful authority and then investigate. They invaded, searched, and seized, and only thereafter sought to clothe their conduct with the appearance of legality.”

“That is not an investigation conducted under the law. It is an attempt to make the law follow police action instead of police action following the law,” she added.

Justice Nyaundi concluded that police powers to investigate crime remained subject to constitutional limits.

“Beyond that boundary lies not law enforcement but abuse of power,” she said.

The court also awarded Kinyagia costs of the petition, with interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full.