Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen has sought to clarify his controversial “shoot on sight” directive, which sparked a wave of criticism following his remarks regarding civilian attacks on police stations.
Speaking on Thursday, June 26, during a media briefing addressing the aftermath of the Gen Z protests—described by Murkomen as an “attempted coup”—he urged police to respond decisively to threats against law enforcement facilities.
“Na tumeambia polisi mtu yeyote atakaribia police station piga yeye risasi,” Murkomen declared, advocating for officers to act with force against anyone approaching police stations with malicious intent.
LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR REMARKS
In a follow-up statement issued on Saturday, the CS asserted that his comments were aligned with the law, citing provisions in the National Police Service Act. The Sixth Schedule of the Act permits the use of firearms under specific conditions, including self-defense, the protection of lives, or safeguarding property.
“My statement was made contextually and consciously within the confines of the law,” he stated. “At my age, position, and experience, I cannot afford to make statements that are not supported by the Constitution or statutes.”
Murkomen challenged critics to provide legal grounds disputing his interpretation of the law, emphasizing that his remarks were a reiteration of existing legal provisions rather than an unconstitutional directive.
CLARIFYING HIS ROLE
The CS underscored that he has no constitutional authority to issue orders to the Police Inspector General or the National Police Service (NPS) to act outside legal parameters.
“I ask those spreading misinformation to challenge me on the law. If anyone claims I issued an order, let them provide evidence. A restatement of the law is not an order,” he argued.
Murkomen further explained his role as a policy advisor to the police, noting that his responsibility is to support law enforcement in maintaining order within the framework of the Constitution.
CONTEXT OF THE REMARKS
The Interior CS defended the necessity of decisive police action in light of escalating attacks on law enforcement during recent protests. He referenced incidents where rioters have burned police stations, stolen firearms, and destroyed public property, emphasizing that officers must protect themselves and uphold public safety.
“Our officers, who face threats from rioters, arsonists, and robbers, cannot remain defenseless. They have a constitutional mandate to defend themselves, the public, and their property,” he stressed.
PUBLIC BACKLASH AND LEGAL CONCERNS
Murkomen’s remarks drew sharp criticism from the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), which condemned them as reckless and warned they could exacerbate extrajudicial killings.
The LSK emphasized the need for law enforcement to exercise restraint and adhere strictly to human rights standards, especially during volatile situations like protests.
The controversy highlights ongoing concerns about police accountability and the fine line between maintaining order and respecting civil liberties.
