Reprieve for Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen as the High Court declines to issue any orders in a case where he is said to be unfit to hold public office.
In the matter at the Milimani High Court, the battle lines were drawn not merely in legal pleadings but in a moral cry for constitutional integrity.
The case, HCCHRPET/E401/2025—Gema Waitho v. Onesimus Kipchumba Murkomen & 7 Others, emerged as more than a dispute—it became a litmus test for constitutional restraint in executive power.
At the center of the storm was a statement by the 1st Respondent, Cabinet Secretary Onesimus Kipchumba Murkomen, alleged to have advocated for the use of lethal force against citizens during public protests. The petitioners, led by Gema Waitho, argued that the Cabinet Secretary’s public utterance amounted to a call for unconstitutional policing, threatening to normalize unlawful force, degrade constitutional safeguards, and legitimise state brutality.
Represented by the firm of Miller & Advocates, the 2nd Respondent arrived in court ready for legal combat. Renowned litigator Cecil Miller, flanked by a second legal team, exuded calm assurance, ready to challenge the weighty accusations being hurled at the Cabinet Secretary.
But this was no ordinary case of political mudslinging. The petitioners were emphatic: “At the heart of this case is the principle that no person is above the law.”
They urged the court to view the Cabinet Secretary’s statement not as isolated commentary but as a “profound failure of leadership” and a “dangerous subversion of the values that underpin Kenya’s democratic order.” According to their submissions, it contravened both constitutional rights and moral duties, undermining the spirit and the letter of Chapter Six of the Constitution, which demands integrity from public office holders.
Justice Lawrence Mugambi, presiding over the hearing, was deliberate in tone and measured in posture. The courtroom fell silent as he addressed the urgent application for interim gag orders, meant to prevent the Cabinet Secretary from making further public statements on police deployment and protest control.
Yet, in a move both legally cautious and constitutionally grounded, the court declined to issue the orders sought.
Justice Mugambi pointed to the National Police Service Act, which already outlines clear command structures, stating that unless “the Petitioners provide evidence that the IG or police acted upon the Cabinet Secretary’s sentiments,” the Court would not be inclined to interfere with executive expression.
It was a sobering reminder: The law does not act on speculation. It acts on evidence.
But even as he declined the application, the Judge acknowledged the gravity of the issues raised, noting that “constitutional values must be protected through legal thresholds, not emotional appeals.”
Despite the legal setback, the petitioners maintained that their cause transcended courtroom wins. They asserted in written 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.”
The petitioners insisted that their application was not about politics but constitutional duty, that the people of Kenya vested judicial authority in the courts “so that the rule of law may not become a casualty of executive overreach.”
In what may prove to be a defining passage of their petition, they warned:
“If impunity is tolerated at this level of office, it signals to every public official that the Constitution can be suspended at will.”
Justice Mugambi, citing judicial workloads and the complexity of the matter, ordered the reallocation of the petition to Court 3, to be mentioned before Justice Bahati Mwamuye on 27th October 2025.
