IG Kanja Faces Sentencing After Court Finds Him in Contempt Over Nairobi Roadblocks
Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja is appearing before the High Court on Monday, September 28, 2026, for mitigation and sentencing after he was found in contempt of court over police roadblocks erected on routes leading into Nairobiβs Central Business District during the June 25 protests. The case has placed renewed focus on police accountability, compliance with court orders and the balance between maintaining public security and protecting constitutional freedoms.
Justice Patricia Nyaundi found Kanja personally responsible for failing to ensure compliance with an earlier court order requiring the National Police Service to issue timely public notices before putting up emergency roadblocks or barricades. The court subsequently directed the Inspector General to appear personally for mitigation before the sentence is determined.
The proceedings stem from events of June 25, 2026, when Kenya marked the second anniversary of the 2024 Finance Bill protests. Police mounted barricades and roadblocks at several points around Nairobi as security agencies prepared for demonstrations and commemorative activities.
The measures affected several major routes and access points leading to the CBD. Among the locations cited in court proceedings were Roysambu, Kangemi, Ngong Road, City Mortuary Roundabout, Integrity Centre, Uhuru Highway and Moi Avenue. Other areas mentioned included Parliament Road, Harambee Avenue, Bunyala Road Roundabout, Karen, Masai Lodge Junction, Allsops Roundabout, Kitengela and Ruiru.
The central issue before the court was not simply whether police had the power to deploy officers or establish security checkpoints. Instead, the proceedings focused on whether the police complied with a specific judicial order requiring advance notice to members of the public before roads were barricaded or access was restricted.
The order at the centre of the dispute was issued by Justice Lawrence Mugambi in July 2025. It required the Inspector General and officers under his command to issue a timely advisory or notice before emergency barricading of roads, allowing members of the public to plan their movements accordingly.
Katiba Institute later moved to court, arguing that the order remained valid and that the police had breached it during the June 25 events. The organisation argued that members of the public were confronted with roadblocks without the required warning, making it difficult for commuters, workers, travellers and other residents to plan their movements.
The institute’s case was therefore anchored not only on the conduct of police during demonstrations but also on the wider constitutional question of freedom of movement.
Justice Nyaundi’s ruling placed considerable emphasis on that distinction. The judge linked the matter to Article 39 of the Constitution, which protects freedom of movement, while also considering the constitutional responsibilities placed on the National Police Service under Article 244.
The court also considered Article 10 of the Constitution, which establishes national values and principles of governance, including the rule of law, human dignity, transparency and accountability.
The judge held that the court order created a positive obligation for the Inspector General to ensure compliance by officers under his command. In her view, internal police procedures could not override a binding court directive.
This became one of the most significant aspects of the ruling because the defence had argued that the roadblocks were not the result of a centrally coordinated operation personally authorised by the Inspector General.
According to reports on the proceedings, Nairobi Regional Police Commander Issa Mohammed Mohamud argued that the measures were responses to emerging security concerns and were not part of a centrally planned operation that would make Kanja personally responsible for every roadblock erected across Nairobi. The defence also maintained that the court order did not amount to an absolute prohibition on roadblocks, security checkpoints or traffic diversions.
The police position was that some of the security measures were spontaneous and prompted by the circumstances on the ground. The defence also argued that the demonstrations themselves had not been properly notified and that officers were acting within their mandate to prevent disorder.
The High Court, however, rejected that interpretation of the order.
Justice Nyaundi found that the obligation was not limited to planned or permanent road closures. The court determined that the requirement to issue timely advisories also applied to emergency barricading of roads.
The judge further found that Kanja had failed to demonstrate what specific measures he had taken to ensure that officers under his command complied with the order.
The court consequently found him in contempt and directed him to appear for mitigation and sentencing.
The events of June 25
The June 25 demonstrations and commemorations were particularly significant because they marked two years since the protests that erupted across Kenya in 2024 over the Finance Bill.
Ahead of the 2026 anniversary, authorities were aware that Kenyans were expected to gather in different parts of the country, including Nairobi.
According to court proceedings, the Interior Cabinet Secretary and Kanja had appeared together the day before the anniversary and assured the public that June 25 would be a normal day for schoolchildren and business people, with protesters expected to be escorted along designated routes.
The subsequent deployment of roadblocks became a major point of contention.
Katiba Institute argued that the restrictions prevented people from accessing the CBD and affected ordinary activities. The organisation said commuters were turned back, long-distance travellers became stranded, businesses were disrupted and some health workers experienced difficulties reaching their workplaces.
One of the accounts presented in court came from Hussein Khalid, who described his experience travelling from Athi River towards Nairobi.
According to the account reported by The Star, Khalid encountered a barricade at Kitengela Roundabout and was informed that vehicles heading towards Nairobi would not be allowed through. He abandoned his vehicle and encountered additional police barriers along his route, including at Mlolongo, Syokimau, SGR Corner, Southern Bypass and Bunyala Road Roundabout.
The account formed part of the evidence presented by Katiba Institute as it argued that the restrictions had a direct impact on freedom of movement.
The court’s concern was therefore not merely about the physical presence of police officers on roads. It was also about whether citizens had been given sufficient information to make alternative arrangements before their movement was restricted.
Why the sentencing matters
The sentencing stage is separate from the earlier determination that contempt occurred.
Kanja has been found in contempt. The proceedings before the court now provide an opportunity for mitigation before the court determines the appropriate sentence. Reports ahead of the hearing have noted that Kanja is expected to personally appear before the court on September 28.
Mitigation gives the person facing sentence an opportunity to present circumstances that the court may consider before determining the penalty.
The eventual sentence will therefore depend on the court’s consideration of the circumstances surrounding the contempt and the submissions made during the sentencing process.
The case has attracted attention because Kanja is the country’s Inspector General of Police and therefore heads the National Police Service.
At the heart of the matter is the question of how far responsibility extends within a large security organisation when officers operating in different locations are accused of violating a court order.
The High Court’s finding indicates that the Inspector General was expected to take steps to ensure that the order was communicated and followed by officers under his command.
The decision has consequently brought the principle of command responsibility into sharper focus.
It also reinforces the broader constitutional principle that government agencies are required to operate within the law and comply with valid court orders.
Katiba Institute welcomed the contempt finding, although its executive director Nora Mbagathi also raised concerns about what she described as the increasing reliance on contempt proceedings to secure compliance by government institutions.
For the organisation, the case goes beyond the events of June 25. It touches on the relationship between the judiciary, security agencies and citizens’ constitutional rights.
The organisation has argued that court orders must be respected by government agencies unless they are varied, suspended or set aside through the proper legal process.
The case has also attracted comments from civil society actors. Hussein Khalid, the Executive Director of VOCAL Africa and a witness in the case, welcomed the court’s decision and said it strengthened accountability in the police service and government.
At the same time, the police side has maintained that officers were responding to security concerns and that the contempt application was misconceived.
That difference in position is important because the proceedings reflect competing responsibilities that frequently arise during demonstrations.
Police have a duty to maintain public safety and prevent disorder. Citizens, meanwhile, retain constitutional rights that cannot simply disappear during periods of heightened security.
The Constitution provides for peaceful assembly under Article 37 and freedom of movement under Article 39. The High Court’s ruling connected the case to both the management of demonstrations and the rights of people who may not have been participating in protests but were affected by restrictions on movement.
The case therefore presents a broader question about how security operations should be conducted in a constitutional democracy.
Roadblocks can serve legitimate security purposes, particularly when authorities face credible threats or serious public-order concerns. But where a court has imposed specific conditions on how such measures should be implemented, those conditions become part of the legal framework within which police must operate.
The court’s finding was that the requirement for public notice had not been met.
That finding has implications beyond one day of protests. It could influence how the National Police Service approaches future demonstrations, public gatherings and emergency security deployments.
For ordinary Nairobi residents, advance information about road closures can be crucial. Nairobi’s transport network is heavily dependent on a limited number of major roads connecting residential areas, industrial zones, business districts and neighbouring counties.
When one major route is blocked without warning, the impact can spread quickly to other roads.
Workers can arrive late. Businesses can lose customers and employees. Students can miss classes. Patients can face difficulties reaching hospitals. Travellers can miss flights, buses or trains.
The court proceedings brought these practical consequences into the legal debate over freedom of movement.
The dispute also demonstrates why communication between security agencies and the public is important during major national events.
A public advisory does not necessarily prevent police from taking security action. Instead, the court order in question required citizens to be informed before emergency barricading so that they could make alternative plans.
That distinction is central to understanding the contempt proceedings.
The High Court did not simply consider whether police officers had legitimate security concerns. It considered whether those actions were carried out consistently with an existing court order.
Justice Nyaundi consequently held that internal police operational procedures could not override the requirements imposed by the court.
The outcome of the sentencing proceedings will now determine the next stage of the matter.
Regardless of the eventual sentence, the case has already generated an important legal discussion about the responsibilities of senior public officials and the enforceability of judicial orders against state institutions.
It also highlights the role of the courts in reviewing actions taken by security agencies during demonstrations.
For the National Police Service, the proceedings underscore the importance of ensuring that operational decisions remain consistent with constitutional obligations and judicial directives.
For civil society groups, the case demonstrates the use of contempt proceedings as a mechanism for seeking compliance with court orders.
For members of the public, it highlights the importance of knowing that constitutional rights can be protected through the courts when there are disputes over government action.
The September 28 appearance therefore represents more than a routine court date. It is the sentencing stage of a case that began with roadblocks on Nairobi’s major roads and developed into a wider legal examination of police accountability, freedom of movement and obedience to judicial orders.
As Kanja appears before the High Court, attention will be focused on the mitigation submissions and the sentence the court ultimately imposes.
The proceedings are also likely to remain significant in discussions about how future protests are managed in Nairobi and across Kenya, particularly where security operations involve restricting access to public roads.
The central issue remains the rule that once a valid court order is issued, public institutions and officials are expected to comply with it.
In this case, the High Court has already determined that the required public advisory was not issued before the June 25 roadblocks and that the Inspector General failed to ensure compliance with the court’s directive.
The sentencing proceedings will now determine the consequences of that finding.
