Court awards IT expert Ndiang’ui Kinyagia Sh5m over police raid
IT expert and blogger Ndiang'ui Kinyagia appear before the Milimani High Court on July 24, 2025, where he was given 14 days to file an affidavit explaining where he was when he went missing on June 21, 2025. He is set to testify on September 16, 2025.
A blogger and social media user has been awarded Sh5 million damages after the High Court found that police violated his rights by raiding his home, seizing his belongings and restricting his movement.
The court found that police unlawfully entered, searched and seized property from tech entrepreneur Ndiang’ui Kinyagia’s home on June 21, 2025, without demonstrating that the legal conditions for a warrantless search had been met.
Justice Patricia Nyaundi faulted the raid and said officers failed to record reasons showing why obtaining a search warrant would have substantially prejudiced their investigation.
“Section 60 of the National Police Service Act is not a declarative provision. It is a constitutional safeguard given statutory form,” said Justice Patricia Nyaundi sitting at the Constitutional & Human Rights Court division in Nairobi.
Mr Kinyagia, a technology entrepreneur and online commentator, came to national attention in June 2025 after he went into hiding when he learnt that officers from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) were looking for him following social media posts linked to planned anti-government protests.
He also became the subject of a separate habeas corpus case after he went into hiding following the police operation. The case centred on alleged self-abduction, which the family lawyers dismissed and revealed that their client was hiding over concerns of his security and fear of being arrested due to the social media post.
The petitioner resurfaced 13 days later and told the court he had hidden because he feared for his safety. An affidavit filed in court by one of the family’s lawyers showed that Mr Kinyagia was living in an undisclosed location for fear of being arrested by police.
He filed the constitutional petition after police investigated an X post they considered inflammatory and seditious. Officers traced the account to him, sought assistance from the Communications Authority of Kenya, then went to his home on June 21, 2025.
They remained at the residence for most of the day before forcibly entering after failing to reach him and removing several items. Mr Kinyagia had gone into hiding after learning that police were at his home, while the court later found that the officers had failed to demonstrate that the legal conditions for a warrantless search existed.
Justice Nyaundi said the petition identified the June 21 entry, search and seizure, surveillance and psychological trauma as its factual basis.
“The allegations, in my view, are sufficiently set out to enable the respondent to understand the case to meet and to allow the court to craft appropriate remedies,” she said.
The judgment sets out what officers must demonstrate when they enter and search private premises without first obtaining a warrant, including why waiting for judicial authority would prejudice an investigation.
The court traced the investigation to a social media post published on the X account Dagwin D.D. on June 18, 2025. Police considered it inflammatory and seditious and began investigations that led them to Mr Kinyagia.
The officers sought assistance from the Communications Authority of Kenya on June 20 to analyze and preserve the message. They went to his residence the following day and stayed there for most of the day.
When they failed to reach him, officers forcibly entered the house and removed items, leaving an inventory with the caretaker.
Mr Kinyagia, having learned officers were at his residence, went into hiding.
The court heard that police relied on Sections 24 and 60 of the National Police Service Act to investigate, enter the premises and secure items.
Justice Nyaundi found officers had not demonstrated that the conditions for a warrantless search under Section 60 existed. “They have not done so,” she said after requiring evidence that the statutory circumstances existed and safeguards were observed.
The court said officers should have recorded reasons for believing evidence of a crime would be found and why obtaining a warrant would substantially prejudice investigations.
“Section 60 of the National Police Service Act is not a declarative provision. It is a constitutional safeguard given statutory form,” Justice Nyaundi said.
She found the search and seizure violated Mr Kinyagia’s privacy and property rights. The court also found violations of his rights to dignity, freedom and security of the person, and freedom of movement.
“The petitioner was therefore not free to move around,” Justice Nyaundi said.
The Attorney General relied on Article 245(4)(a), arguing that the Constitution protects the Inspector-General’s independence in investigations. The court said that the independence did not place police powers beyond constitutional and legal limits.
The court found that the investigation began with an unlawful entry, search and seizure and that the subsequent process could not sustain prosecution against Mr Kinyagia.
“A prosecution founded upon a process so tainted by constitutional illegality cannot stand. It must be barred as the petitioner has urged,” it said.
The court noted that the seized items had already been returned when the petition was finally heard.
The court also barred the Director of Public Prosecutions and police from prosecuting Mr Kinyagia over the investigation, finding that police powers do not allow officers to bypass constitutional safeguards when entering a person’s home.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.
