A man has moved to court, seeking to compel the government to remove him from the terrorist blacklist, claiming that he has been going through untold pain for the last six years.
In his case, Abdalla Abdlkadir Mohamed, who hails from Lamu County, has sued the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), the Inspector General of Police, the Director of Immigration and the Attorney General, saying that since 2019, whenever he arrives at the airport or the border, he is stopped and referred to the Anti-Terrorism Police Unit (ATPU).
Mohamed told the High Court that he is detained and questioned for being in the country’s terror suspects black book.
“On inquiry, the petitioner is informed that he is stopped, detained, and questioned because his name allegedly appears on “a list.” However, he has never been given details of the alleged “list,” the reason why he appears on such a “list,” or any alleged offence that led to him being placed on the “list.” He is also not informed of any orders issued against him that warrant his continued stopping, detention, and questioning,” his lawyer Taib Ali Taib said.
Mohamed stated that he wrote to the police on November 20 and 27, 2025, inquiring why he had been flagged. He demanded to be removed from the list, arguing that he was intentionally, erroneously and unfairly included in the database.
He further said that he did not receive any response.
Taib argued that it was strange that the security agencies were unwilling to give information on why his client was always a person of interest.
He said that repeated stoppage, detention and questioning without divulging any incriminating information was unfair and against Mohamed’s right to a lawyer and to be heard.
“By repeatedly stopping and detaining the petitioner for questioning by the first respondent over a period exceeding six years, the respondents have, ipso facto, designated him a terror suspect, for an indefinite period, and or effectively treated him as a de facto ‘specified entity,” claimed Taib.
According to the senior lawyer, the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) describes a specified entity as a person who is believed to have committed, attempted to commit or participated, or is preparing to commit a terrorist act. At the same time, he said that Section 3 b of the same law includes persons who act on behalf of or in association with the specified person.
He stated that the law requires the Cabinet Secretary to gazette a specified entity.
The lawyer was, however, of the view that his client did not appear in any notice.
“Specified entities must be gazetted as such by the Cabinet Secretary. The Petitioner was treated as a specified entity and or a suspected specified entity even though he has never been gazetted as such. This treatment denied him a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate why he should not be treated as such, a right granted to specified entities under Section 3 (2) of the POTA,” argued Taib.
Mohamed wants the court to find that he has been unlawfully treated as a terrorist. Further, he is seeking an order to compel the police to remove him from the watch list. The man also wants the court to bar the police from either stopping, arresting or detaining him over the same claims.
Mohamed is also seeking Sh5 million as compensation for the alleged violation of his rights.
In his supporting affidavit, he said that he cannot travel anymore owing to the arrests.
“The threat of repetition of this treatment is real, immediate, and continuing. Whenever I travel, whether for personal, business, or family reasons, I face the same ordeal. I cannot plan my travel with any certainty that I will not be detained and humiliated. The pattern of conduct by the respondents gives me every reason to believe that unless this Court intervenes, I will be subjected to the same treatment on my next occasion of travel,” he said.
He lamented that the detention happens in full view of the public, and sometimes, before people who know him.
Mohamed expressed fears that he may be arrested or charged for an offence he was not aware of.
“I am genuinely and deeply anxious about what consequence the continued listing may have for me, beyond inconvenience and detention at ports each episode of detention and handover to ATPU officers occurs in full public view — in the presence of other travellers, airport and border staff, and sometimes my family and associates,” he said.
“The cumulative reputational harm from being publicly treated as a terror suspect over six years is considerable, and no amount of damages awarded at the end of these proceedings can restore my reputation for the period in the interim during which I continue to suffer this treatment,” Mohamed added.
