The High Court has delivered a landmark ruling declaring President William Ruto’s establishment of a task force to compensate victims of protest-related violence unconstitutional, affirming that the mandate lies with the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR).
In a judgment issued on Thursday, the court partially upheld consolidated petitions challenging the legality of the Presidential Panel of Experts on Compensation of Victims of Demonstrations and Public Protests, stating that while the President has a duty to protect human rights, he cannot unilaterally create such a body.
“The president is authorised to ensure protection of human rights under Article 131 and to ensure compliance with human rights obligations and may consistently call for a report from the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, including the design of a framework for reparations,” the court ruled.
However, it added, “The President is not constitutionally empowered to constitute a panel of experts to advise on the compensation of victims of protests. The same lies with the competent body- KNCHR.”
The decision validates objections by KNCHR, which had argued that the task force duplicated its constitutional mandate.
Dr Bernard Mogesa, KNCHR’s CEO, had previously in an affidavit termed the panel’s formation “irregular and illegal,” citing overlaps in verifying victims, designing compensation frameworks, and proposing police reforms.
"The establishment of this panel amounts to breach of the Constitution," Dr Mogesa had maintained in court filings, arguing the taskforce's verification and compensation functions directly encroached on KNCHR's statutory mandate.
He had also raised concerns about wasteful expenditure, noting that Kenya already spends millions annually to maintain constitutional commissions like KNCHR.
The court’s ruling now places the responsibility for redress squarely on KNCHR, ordering it to “take steps to secure appropriate redress where redress is required.”
The judgment also extends existing conservatory orders freezing the panel’s operations, stating, “In the meantime, the orders stopping the work of the panel remain in force.”
The court further directed that if corrective measures are not taken within 30 days, the panel’s establishment will be quashed, and a prohibition issued to halt its implementation. The case will be mentioned on January 20, 2026, for compliance review.
The ruling deals a blow to the government’s plans for expedited compensation to victims of police brutality during recent protests, a move critics had dismissed as politically motivated.
The establishment of the 18-member ‘compensation and reparation panel’ was announced through a government gazette notice dated August 25.
It had been mandated to design and establish an operational framework to verify, categorise, and compensate eligible victims.
It was also expected to engage with relevant stakeholders to ensure inclusivity and fairness in the compensation process and authenticate data on eligible victims.
Further, the taskforce was to propose legislative and institutional reforms to address protests and culture of policing. Upon completion of its work, the panel was expected to prepare and submit reports to the President. The legal dispute is pending determination.
Activists and lawyers had argued that the task force undermined independent institutions like KNCHR and the judiciary. They contended it violated separation of powers by usurping roles belonging to KNCHR, the judiciary, and other oversight institutions like Ipoa and the Victims Protection Board.
The court’s decision echoes these concerns, emphasizing that redress mechanisms must align with constitutional safeguards.
The Law Society of Kenya (LSK), which had defended the panel’s legality, citing the President’s executive powers under Articles 131 and 132, now faces a setback.
LSK had likened the task force to the Building Bridges Initiative (BBI) panel, which courts previously upheld as a policy advisory mechanism.
In affidavits filed by CEO Florence Muturi, LSK argued the President's powers under Articles 131 and 132 allowed him to form advisory bodies.
However, today's judgment distinguished between general policy advisory functions (permitted) and specific statutory mandates like victim compensation (reserved for specialized institutions).
With the panel’s fate sealed, attention shifts to KNCHR’s capacity to deliver timely reparations.
The commission must now design a credible framework amid lingering public distrust in state-led accountability processes.
For victims awaiting justice, the court’s intervention offers a constitutional reprieve—but the path forward hinges on KNCHR’s swift action.
