A fresh legal battle has opened at the High Court of Kenya after Katiba Institute lodged a petition seeking to invalidate a 2025 directive on police use of force, arguing it was issued in breach of both the Constitution and the law governing the National Police Service.
Filed on Tuesday under HCCHRPET/E275/2026, the case targets Policy Directive No. 1 of 2025, signed on July 18, 2025 by Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen and addressed to Inspector General Douglas Kanja. Katiba Institute maintains that the directive has no legal grounding and was introduced outside the framework provided by the National Police Service Act.
At the core of the dispute is a clause directing the Office of the Attorney General to arrange legal defence for officers charged in incidents involving use of force. The organisation says this provision goes against the Constitution and distorts the justice system.
“The Attorney General has no mandate to participate in criminal proceedings against police officers in the manner contemplated by the directive,” the lobby group states in its court filings.
“It is an unlawful attempt to elevate police officers above other citizens by granting them preferential treatment in the criminal justice system,” the petition reads.
Katiba Institute further argues that the directive was rolled out without meeting constitutional demands on openness and inclusion, saying the public was not involved despite the far-reaching impact of the policy.
“The implementation of the policy directive will gravely affect the rights of the people of Kenya, yet it was adopted without public participation as required under Articles 10 and 232 of the Constitution,” the group argues.
The petition also challenges the legal route taken, stating that the National Police Service Act does not recognise such directives, but instead requires structured regulations developed jointly by the Cabinet Secretary and the Inspector General.
It adds that there is no indication that key offices, including that of the Attorney General, were consulted before the directive was issued.
“The law does not contemplate the issuance of ‘policy directives’ that amount to commands from the Cabinet Secretary to the Inspector General,” Katiba Institute says.
Through its lawyer Kevin Walumbe, the organisation claims the Cabinet Secretary acted beyond his authority and breached several constitutional provisions, including Articles 1(1) and (2), 10, 27, 37, 50, 153(4)(a), 156(4), and 232(1)(d).
The group points to Schedules 6A and 6B of the National Police Service Act, which outline how rules on the use of force and firearms should be formulated through consultation with relevant stakeholders, not imposed unilaterally.
“Rather than issuing a directive that falls short of statutory thresholds, the Cabinet Secretary ought to have developed regulations in consultation with the Inspector General, as required under the National Police Service Act,” it argues.
Katiba Institute also contends that the directive creates unequal treatment by assuring police officers of State-funded legal support, which it says conflicts with Article 27 on equality and non-discrimination.
In the case, the organisation is seeking orders to have the directive declared unconstitutional and set aside in full. It also wants the court to compel the Cabinet Secretary and the Inspector General to establish proper rules on the lawful use of force and firearms within 60 days.
The matter has already progressed procedurally, with the court directing parties to submit their responses and arguments. It will be mentioned on May 19, 2026 for further directions on how the case will proceed.
The petition places focus on how policing policies are crafted in Kenya and raises broader questions about the limits of executive authority in issuing directives that affect law enforcement operations.