KILLED BY THE STATE, COMPENSATED BY THE STATE? NOT SO FAST, SAYS THE HIGH COURT.

Breaking down Munyeri v Attorney General: the ruling that stripped President Ruto of control over protest-victim compensation

By Kimberly Odumbe | Advocate Trainee |

CASE CITATION

Munyeri & 2 others v Attorney General & 3 others; Mutua & 20 others (Interested Parties) Petition E010, E011 & E014 of 2025 (Consolidated) | [2025] KEHC 18266 (KLR) | High Court at Kerugoya | 4 December 2025 |

THE BACKGROUND

On August 6, 2025, President Ruto issued a Presidential Proclamation establishing a framework to compensate victims who lost their lives or suffered bodily injury in public protests and riots since 2017.

Three weeks later, Gazette Notice No. 12002 formally appointed an 18-member Panel of Experts, chaired by Professor Makau Mutua, to implement it, with Law Society of Kenya president Faith Odhiambo initially serving as vice chair.

Nairobi advocate Levi Munyeri, together with Gema Watho Association and Eunice Nganga, filed three separate constitutional petitions (later consolidated as E010, E011 and E014 of 2025) challenging the Proclamation and the Panel's appointment as unconstitutional. Their core argument: the President had no authority to create this mechanism, because the Constitution already assigns that role to an independent body.

HOW IT MOVED THROUGH COURT

September 2025; Justice Kizito Magare, then Justice Ngwono, issued conservatory orders halting the Panel's mandate and suspending Gazette Notice No. 12002 pending a full hearing.

October–November 2025; Faith Odhiambo resigned as vice chair citing the litigation; Ruto replaced her with KNHRC chairperson Claris Ogangah. A separate ruling on November 10 dealt with an application to strike her out as a party.

December 4, 2025; Justice delivered the consolidated judgment on the merits, the decision this piece breaks down.

January 2026; Ruto gazetted a revised framework and extended the Panel's term by 180 days to comply with the ruling.

February 2026; some victims' families publicly pushed for the case to be withdrawn, arguing the ongoing litigation was delaying payouts.

THE ISSUES THE COURT HAD TO DECIDE

1.     Jurisdiction: could a constitutional petition properly challenge the validity of a Presidential Proclamation and a Gazette Notice at all, under Articles 1(3), 2(2) and 165(3)?

2.     Separation of powers: did the President's constitutional duty to protect fundamental rights and freedoms Articles 131(2)(e) and 132(5), extend to originating a reparations framework?

3.     Institutional mandate: was that role instead constitutionally assigned to the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights under Article 59(1)(g)?

4.     Overlap: did the Panel duplicate functions already held by the police, IPOA, or the Victim Protection Board under the Victim Protection Act, Cap 79A?

5.     International law: does Kenya carry an obligation under the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation to build a non-judicial route to reparations where perpetrators can't be identified or prosecuted?

WHAT THE COURT HELD

The Court found the Presidential Proclamation and Gazette Notice No. 12002 constitutionally invalid as issued. The President's role in protecting fundamental rights does not stretch to personally originating and leading a reparations framework that function belongs to the KNCHR under Article 59(1)(g), a body constitutionally built to sit outside executive control.

“The role of the President under articles 131(2)(e) and 132(5) of the Constitution... did not include the making of the Proclamation.” ~ High Court, Munyeri v Attorney General [2025] KEHC 18266

But the Court didn't stop the reparations process altogether. It held that Kenya does carry an international law obligation to provide a non-judicial remedy for gross human rights violations where identifying and prosecuting a perpetrator isn't realistic, and that this is precisely the gap the Victim Protection Act doesn't fill, since that Act only pays out after a criminal conviction.

So the need for a reparations mechanism was real; the President was just the wrong author of it.

“The fact that State actors caused harm does not disable the State from making reparation.” ~High Court, Munyeri v Attorney General [2025] KEHC 18266

Rather than kill the scheme outright, the Court suspended its own declaration of invalidity for 30 days, giving the government a window to amend the Proclamation and Gazette Notice to bring the KNHRC into the lead role. Only if that 30-day deadline passed unmet would orders of certiorari and prohibition take effect and formally quash the framework.

WHY THIS RULING MATTERS BEYOND THIS CASE

This wasn't an isolated challenge to executive overreach; the same judgment addressed a parallel petition over Ruto's National Task Force on the National Police Service and Kenya Prisons Service, which petitioners argued duplicated the National Police Service Commission's mandate under Article 246(3).

Two proclamations, one pattern: an executive comfortable creating ad hoc bodies to do work the Constitution already assigned to independent commissions.

In essence, for a State reckoning with its own police accused of killing protesters, the question of who designs the compensation isn't procedural fine print, it's the difference between the government marking its own homework and an independent commission holding it accountable while distributing redress. That's the doctrinal core of this ruling, and it's why the case is worth more than a headline

 

Kimberly Odumbe is an LLB graduate, trainee advocate, and firm believer that the most powerful tool in Kenya’s democracy is an informed citizen.  

 

 

Catch you in the next blog!

 

Disclaimer- The information provided is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as professional advice. Please consult a qualified professional for specific guidance.