High Court Declines Orders Against CS Murkomen in Heated Integrity Suit
0
0
By Dennis Wanyonyi
Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen received temporary relief after the High Court declined to grant interim orders in a petition challenging his suitability to hold public office.
In the matter before the Milimani High Court — HCCHRPET/E401/2025: Gema Waitho v. Onesimus Kipchumba Murkomen & 7 Others — legal arguments clashed with public morality in a constitutional contest over the limits of executive speech.
At the center of the case is a statement allegedly made by Murkomen, advocating for the use of lethal force against civilians during public protests. The petitioners, led by Gema Waitho, accused the CS of breaching Chapter Six of the Constitution, claiming his comments amounted to an endorsement of unlawful policing and state violence.
Represented by Miller & Advocates, the 2nd Respondent entered the courtroom with a high-powered legal team led by renowned litigator Cecil Miller, prepared to contest the petitioners’ assertions. The defense appeared confident and unshaken by the mounting pressure surrounding the matter.
But the petitioners struck a somber tone:
“At the heart of this case is the principle that no person is above the law.”
Their written submissions warned that the CS’s utterances constituted not just a political misstep but a “profound failure of leadership” and “dangerous subversion of the values that underpin Kenya’s democratic order.”
They insisted that constitutional integrity was at stake, and that the law should not bend for high-ranking government officials. The petitioners urged the court to treat Murkomen’s words as more than rhetoric, emphasizing their potential to erode public trust and normalize the abuse of power.
Presiding Judge Justice Lawrence Mugambi declined to issue the interim orders sought, including a gag order preventing Murkomen from speaking publicly about police operations.
Justice Mugambi ruled that without proof that the Inspector General or the National Police Service acted on the Cabinet Secretary’s remarks, the court had no grounds to intervene.
He noted:
“The Petitioners must provide evidence that the IG or police acted upon the Cabinet Secretary’s sentiments,” adding that the court would not interfere with executive speech based on conjecture.
Still, the judge recognized the weight of the matter:
“Constitutional values must be protected through legal thresholds, not emotional appeals.”
Despite the initial setback, the petitioners remained defiant in their cause, reiterating in their submissions:
“No cause, no protest, no moment of tension justifies the suspension of constitutional rights. To threaten lethal force against citizens at such a location is to mock the Constitution’s very soul.”
They concluded with a chilling warning:
“If impunity is tolerated at this level of office, it signals to every public official that the Constitution can be suspended at will.”
Due to the judicial caseload and complexity of the matter, Justice Mugambi ordered the petition transferred to Court 3, where it will be mentioned before Justice Bahati Mwamuye on 27th October 2025.
About The Author
