High Court Pardons IG Kanja but Warns of Jail Over Future Roadblock Breach

Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja has escaped a custodial sentence after the High Court found him in contempt over police roadblocks mounted during the June 25 demonstrations in Nairobi.

Justice Patricia Nyaundi on Monday September 28 pardoned Kanja at the sentencing stage after he appeared before the court in person and assured the judge that the National Police Service would comply with the orders in future.

But the reprieve came with a clear warning.

The judge said Kanja could face imprisonment if there is another breach of the court order.

The decision closes one chapter of a case that placed the head of Kenya's police service personally at risk of jail over the handling of demonstrations.

Kanja's personal assurance

Kanja had been found in contempt on September 17 after the court ruled that police failed to issue the public advisory required before emergency roadblocks were mounted on June 25.

On Monday, he returned to court to make submissions on why he should not be punished for the breach.

Justice Nyaundi took into account his personal appearance and his assurance that steps had been taken to ensure officers under his command obey court orders.

“Noting that you have attended court in person, appreciating that you have undertaken and given assurance that this will not happen again, I shall pardon you,” the judge ruled.

The court nevertheless made clear that the contempt finding itself was not being erased.

Instead, the judge opted against imposing a custodial sentence after considering Kanja's mitigation and undertaking.

What led to the contempt case?

The dispute dates back to June 25, when police mounted roadblocks and barricades at several routes leading into Nairobi's Central Business District during demonstrations marking the second anniversary of the 2024 Finance Bill protests.

The action prompted Katiba Institute to return to court, arguing that the police had breached existing orders governing how roadblocks should be imposed.

The original order was issued by Justice Lawrence Mugambi on July 9, 2025 and later extended.

It restrained the Inspector General and officers under his command from blocking access to Nairobi's CBD or other public roads without first issuing a timely advisory before emergency barricades were put up.

The purpose was to give members of the public an opportunity to plan their movements.

The court record lists roadblocks at several points around Nairobi, including Kitengela, Mlolongo, Syokimau, the Southern Bypass, Bunyala Road, Roysambu, Kangemi, Ngong Road and roads around Parliament.

Police defence rejected

The National Police Service disputed the claim that the roadblocks amounted to a deliberate breach.

In an affidavit filed through Nairobi Regional Commander Issa Mohammed Mohamud, police argued that the checkpoints were spontaneous security measures responding to threats assessed on the ground.

The police position was that the checkpoints were not part of a single, top-down operation ordered by the Inspector General.

They also argued that officers were acting within their statutory security mandate and that demonstrators and members of the public were allowed through where officers considered it safe.

Justice Nyaundi rejected that interpretation.

In her September 17 ruling, she found that Kanja had failed to ensure compliance with the requirement for a timely public advisory.

The judge also noted that Kanja had been present at a media briefing on June 24 when Kenyans were assured that June 25 would be a normal day.

Yet major routes were subsequently barricaded.

The court found that the absence of an advisory, despite the police being aware that demonstrations were planned, met the threshold for contempt.

Court stresses rule of law

The case was not simply about traffic disruption.

Justice Nyaundi said contempt proceedings serve to protect the authority of lawful court orders and the rule of law.

The court record states that the issue was whether the Inspector General had complied with a clear and positive order, rather than whether the police had a general power to deploy officers or establish security checkpoints.

That distinction is important.

The judgment did not strip police of their statutory security functions. It required those functions to be exercised consistently with binding court orders.

The court also considered the effect of sudden road closures on members of the public.

The petitioners told the court that commuters were turned back, travellers were stranded, some health workers experienced difficulties reaching hospitals and businesses were disrupted.

Those claims formed part of the evidence presented in the contempt proceedings.

What the warning means

Kanja's decision to appear personally and give an undertaking has now spared him jail in this case.

But the warning leaves little room for another lapse.

The High Court has effectively placed responsibility on the police leadership to ensure that officers comply with the order governing emergency roadblocks and public advisories.

Any future breach could therefore bring the question of a custodial sentence back before the court.

The case also leaves a wider issue on the table: how the National Police Service balances its responsibility to maintain public safety during demonstrations with citizens' constitutional rights and the obligation to obey court orders.

For Kanja, Monday's decision means he walks away without a jail term.

For the police service, the court's message is that security powers do not operate outside the limits imposed by lawful judicial orders.

About the Author

Maureen Onyango is a journalist passionate about storytelling, life coaching and spiritual lessons. She studied at the Kenya Institute of Management and enjoys telling stories that inform, inspire and empower communities.