Five years in jail, Sh2m fine: the law Karen Nyamu may have just walked into

On March 25, 2026, a female learner who had just started senior school under Kenya's competency-based curriculum was welcomed into the Senate chambers.

Speaker Amason Jeffah Kingi introduced her to the legislators, explaining that she was undertaking a one-week service at the Senate as part of her school's voluntary service scheme.

What followed reflected what studies have identified as one of the factors that lead communities to normalise, minimise or condone child sexual abuse: the sexual objectification of children.

Sexual activity

Research instead calls for challenging cognitive distortions that portray children as sexually willing — the false and harmful beliefs that present children as capable of consenting to, initiating, enjoying or understanding sexual activity with adults. No reasonable person should frame a child within the context of sexual exploitation.

Yet nominated Senator Karen Nyamu, a leader expected to champion laws and policies that protect children and advance their rights, appeared to do precisely that.

Soon after the learner was introduced, Nyamu remarked: "Mr Speaker, probably you should have made it clear which service to the Senate she is offering because I saw Senators getting very excited when they saw a lady. Yeah, it's good to clarify."

She continued: "You might think that she's going to do your notes or your, you know, it's good to specify which service that she's going to offer the Senate."

Although she later apologised, she maintained that she had been "highly misunderstood" and said she was "very surprised" by the reaction.

"I acknowledge that the utterances were inappropriate and fell short of the dignity, decorum, and respect expected of a State Officer, particularly towards a young female learner who was in the Speaker's gallery. I reaffirm my commitment to uphold the values and integrity of the Senate and to treat all persons, especially young people, engaging with Parliament with the respect and courtesy they deserve," she said in her apology.

Read: Purity Kemei: Shield girls against abuse

Her remarks contradict the protection principles anchored in the Children Act, 2022, and could attract legal consequences. Section 22(1) of the Act states that no person shall subject a child to psychological abuse or child abuse. Anyone who contravenes the provision commits an offence and is liable, upon conviction, to imprisonment of up to five years, a fine not exceeding Sh2 million, or both.

The former Law Society of Kenya president, Faith Odhiambo, said the remarks amounted to a gross violation of the dignity of a child.

"Article 53(2) makes the child's best interests paramount in every matter, with no exceptions," she said in an X post on May 7, 2026.

"Additionally, Section 22(1) of the Children Act 2022 prohibits any person from subjecting a child to psychological abuse, which includes acts causing embarrassment and humiliation."

She called on the Senate to go beyond accepting "a theatrical apology" and instead pursue concrete accountability measures.

"Senator Karen Nyamu still sought to justify her conduct even while purporting to apologise," she noted. "An apology that is read and accepted in minutes is not justice. If we are serious about protecting the girl child, then our institutions must reflect that seriousness."

The National Gender and Equality Commission (NGEC) has also weighed in on the matter. It said it condemns any conduct, statements or actions that undermine the dignity, psychological well-being, safety and best interests of children within public institutions and leadership spaces.

Human rights

In a statement posted on X on May 8, 2026, the Commission said children are entitled to dignity, protection and respect at all times, as guaranteed under Article 53 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, the Children Act 2022, and international human rights instruments ratified by Kenya.

The Commission noted that public institutions such as the Senate have a heightened obligation to uphold these protections, and to demonstrate leadership grounded in integrity, professionalism, equality and non-discrimination.

"Language used by leaders carries institutional authority and influence. Remarks that expose children to humiliation, embarrassment, objectification, ridicule, or psychological harm are inconsistent with the national values and principles of governance enshrined under Article 10 of the Constitution," the Commission said.

It emphasised that the dignity and best interests of the child must remain paramount in every matter affecting children, adding that psychological safety is an essential component of child protection.

"Public discourse, particularly from state officers and public leaders, must never normalise inappropriate innuendo, gendered humiliation, or conduct that diminishes the dignity of girls and young women," it added.

The Commission also urged leaders to exercise responsibility, professionalism and respect in public communication, noting that their words shape societal attitudes and institutional culture.

Legal action

However, questions have also emerged over whether Senator Karen Nyamu can actually face legal action for remarks made on the Senate floor, given that legislators enjoy immunity under the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act, 2017.

Section 12(1) of the Act states that: “No civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted against any Member for words spoken before, or written in a report to Parliament or a Committee, or by reason of any matter or thing brought by him or her therein by a report, petition, Bill, resolution, motion or other document written to Parliament.”

The provision shields Members of Parliament from legal liability arising from statements made in the course of parliamentary proceedings. But legal experts say the protection is not necessarily absolute.

Aggrey Juma, a lawyer and Senior Project Manager at International Justice Mission (IJM), said legal action may still be possible depending on the nature of the alleged offence and the remedies being sought.

IJM works to protect children at risk and women from violence, sexual exploitation and abuse while supporting access to justice for survivors.

“The question would be the course of action,” he said. “If there is a law that has been breached by the statement, yes, it can be taken to court.”

He explained that although parliamentary immunity exists, courts can still be asked to waive the protection where the privilege is alleged to have been misused.

“The immunity will cover her, but it is something that you can ask the court to waive because it has been misused,” he said.

However, he noted that such a case would ordinarily require the involvement of the affected child’s parents or guardians.

“But in children’s matters, it can also be brought as a public interest case. It does not necessarily have to be the parents,” he added.

Read: Karen Nyamu ejected from chambers, told to 'dress properly'

Aggrey said any legal challenge would first need to establish the specific law allegedly breached and whether the matter falls under criminal liability or parliamentary disciplinary procedures.

“The focus is which specific part of the law did they breach,” he said. “And then whether that part is remedied by the courts or through disciplinary processes within the Senate.”

He further observed that courts are often reluctant to interfere with parliamentary proceedings, particularly where Parliament argues that internal accountability mechanisms are already addressing the issue.

“If it goes to court, Parliament is likely to argue that there is already a process ongoing within the Senate to address the issue and, therefore, the court does not have jurisdiction,” he said.

“The likelihood that the court may agree with that position is also high.”

He also pointed to the possibility that Nyamu’s legal team could argue that her remarks were open to interpretation.

“We all know what she meant, but in plain terms there was openness to interpretation,” he said.

“Her defence could argue, ‘We did not mean this, we meant that.’”

Still, Aggrey said the controversy raises broader concerns about accountability, especially where remarks touching on minors are made within public institutions.

“There is need for more discussion on what action needs to be taken,” he said, while criticising Nyamu’s apology as insufficient.

“It didn't come from the heart. It was not even an apology,” he observed.

[email protected]