Civil societies and rights groups clash over protests panel

Amnesty International Director Houghton Irungu with the Law Society of Kenya President Faith Odhiambo during the swearing in of Panel of Experts on Compensation of victims of protests and Riots on September 4, 2025.[Benard Orwongo, Standard]

Civil societies and human rights groups have clashed over the Presidential Panel of Experts on Compensation of Victims of Protests and Riots on constitutional requirements.

Non-Governmental Organisations under the Police Reform Working Group-Kenya (PRWG) lauded the decision by the High Court in Kerugoya to halt the panel, terming it illegal.

In a statement after the court ruling, 20 NGOs under PRWG demanded activation of the Victims Protection Fund as established under the Victim Protection Act, 2014 in place of the panel.

The PRWG said while they are not opposed to compensation of victims, creation of the team under the Executive, undermines the already established constitutional framework.

"This regime has already confirmed availability of funds earmarked for this unlawful framework, and those resources must be redirected immediately to the Victims Protection Fund to provide lawful, effective, and sustainable support to victims and survivors of state violence," reads the statement.

However, the International Justice Mission (IJM) Kenya urged Kenya to put victims of police brutality at the centre of the debate, rather than get mired in arguments over legality of the panel.

The appointment of the panel chaired by Prof Makau Mutua has faced criticism from sections of legal fraternity and human rights sector.

Among those under critical scrutiny is LSK president Faith Odhiambo, who serves as the panel's vice chairperson.

Other members of the panel who faced criticism include Amnesty International Kenya Executive Director Irungu Houghton.

However, Vincent Chahale, IJM's Country Director said the controversy over the panel's legal standing risks overshadowing the need to address the suffering of victims and their families.

"I wish that, as a nation, we would not be arguing on procedure, if we are agreeing that people need compensation. Because the debate we are having now is whether the means justifies the end, or the end should justify the means," he said.