Kanja to face sentencing over June 25 Nairobi roadblocks

Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja has been found in contempt of court after police barricaded roads in Nairobi during the second anniversary of the June 25 protests without issuing the required public advisory.

High Court Judge Patricia Nyaundi on Thursday held Kanja personally responsible for failing to ensure compliance with an order requiring the National Police Service to notify the public before mounting emergency roadblocks or barricades.

The judge directed Kanja to appear before the High Court on September 22, 2026, for mitigation and sentencing.

“I find that the Inspector General is in contempt of the High Court order for failing to issue an emergency advisory prior to barricading of roads.I hereby direct Douglas Kanja to attend court on September 22, 2026, for mitigation and sentencing,” Justice Nyaundi ruled.

The contempt proceedings arose from the June 25, 2026, Gen Z anniversary commemorations, when police mounted roadblocks and barricades at several entry points into Nairobi, restricting access to the Central Business District (CBD).

Katiba Institute moved to court accusing the police of violating conservatory orders issued by Justice Lawrence Mugambi on July 9, 2025. The orders required the Inspector General or officers under his command to issue a timely advisory before emergency barricading of roads.

Justice Nyaundi found that the order was clear and straightforward and placed a positive obligation on the Inspector General to ensure the public was informed whenever police contemplated closing roads or establishing checkpoints.

She rejected the argument that the roadblocks did not amount to interference with movement, holding that the failure to provide notice was itself a violation of the court order.

“Citizens cannot meaningfully exercise their movement when confronted with sudden unexplained barriers,” Justice Nyaundi said.

The judge said Article 244 of the Constitution requires the National Police Service to comply with constitutional standards on human rights, adding that internal operational procedures could not override a valid court order.

“The Constitution does not permit him to say my officers acted on operational procedures. Operational procedures cannot override a court order,” she said.

Justice Nyaundi also faulted Kanja for failing to personally respond to the allegations of non-compliance or explain what measures he had put in place to ensure adherence to the order.

“His silence speaks loudly. It reveals not merely an administrative lapse but a constitutional failure to grasp that duty,” the judge said.

She said the Inspector General was expected to demonstrate “with clarity and candor” how he had ensured adherence to the court’s instructions.

The judge also dismissed the suggestion that the roadblocks had been mounted hurriedly or in response to unforeseen circumstances. She noted that Kanja had been present at a press conference where assurances were given that the following day would be normal for schoolchildren and business people.

Despite the assurances, police subsequently mounted roadblocks without issuing advisories to the public.

Justice Nyaundi linked compliance with the order to Article 10 of the Constitution, which sets out national values and principles of governance, including the rule of law, human dignity, transparency and accountability.

She also cited Article 244, which requires the National Police Service to comply with constitutional standards on human rights and fundamental freedoms.

On restrictions to movement, the judge invoked Article 24 of the Constitution, which requires any limitation of a right to be reasonable, justifiable and procedurally fair.

“Indiscriminate lockdowns of the Central Business District without notice or justification cannot be reconciled with constitutional standards,” she said.

Justice Nyaundi said obedience to court orders was central to the rule of law, stressing that contempt proceedings were intended to protect the authority of the judicial process rather than the personal authority of a judge.

“The concept of the rule of law lies at the very heart, for without obedience to judicial orders the rule of law becomes a hollow promise,” she said.

The July 9, 2025, order by Justice Mugambi had restrained Kanja and officers under his command from mounting barricades or blocking access to Nairobi’s CBD and its streets without issuing a timely advisory or public notice before emergency measures were taken.

The order followed a petition by Katiba Institute challenging police restrictions on access to Nairobi during demonstrations.

In the contempt proceedings, Katiba Institute said police nevertheless mounted roadblocks at several locations on June 25, including Roysambu, Kangemi, Ngong Road, City Mortuary Roundabout, Integrity Centre, Uhuru Highway, Moi Avenue, Parliament Road, Karen, Kitengela, Ruiru and Githurai.

“The conduct set out above constitutes a direct and deliberate violation of the orders of this Honourable Court and warrants immediate judicial intervention,” the organisation said in its application.

Katiba Institute argued that the restrictions disrupted movement and affected people travelling to work, seeking healthcare and attending to other daily activities.

In a replying affidavit filed on behalf of Kanja, Nairobi Regional Police Commander Issa Mohammed Mohamud argued that the roadblocks and security checkpoints mounted on June 25 did not violate the existing orders because they were not part of a centrally coordinated operation.

Mohamud said the July 9, 2025, orders did not impose an absolute ban on police mounting roadblocks, security checkpoints or traffic diversions, arguing that the measures were responses to emerging security concerns.

The court, however, found that Kanja had failed to demonstrate what specific measures he had taken to ensure compliance with the requirement that the public be notified before roadblocks or barricades were erected.

Justice Nyaundi consequently found the Inspector General personally responsible for contempt and directed him to appear in court for mitigation before the sentence is determined.