The High Court in Nairobi has on Monday, September 28, 2026, discharged Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja after finding him in contempt of court over police roadblocks and barricades erected during demonstrations in Nairobi on June 25, 2026. Justice Patricia Nyaundi opted not to impose a punitive or custodial sentence on the police chief but issued a stern warning that any recurrence could lead to imprisonment. 

The outcome followed Kanja's personal appearance before the High Court for mitigation and sentencing. He appeared alongside senior National Police Service officials, including Deputy Inspector General Eliud Lagat and Directorate of Criminal Investigations Director Mohamed Amin. The presence of the senior officers came as the court considered the circumstances surrounding the contempt finding and the steps Kanja said he would take to prevent a repeat of the violation. 

Background to the case

The case arose from police operations during the June 25, 2026 demonstrations in Nairobi. The demonstrations were connected to commemorations of the Gen Z-led protests that had taken place in 2024.

The legal dispute centred on roadblocks and barricades that were erected on roads leading into Nairobi's Central Business District. According to the court proceedings, there was an existing court order requiring the police to issue timely public advisories before emergency barricading of roads. The purpose of the requirement was to enable members of the public to plan their movements and avoid unexpected disruption. 

The conservatory order had been issued on July 9, 2025, by Justice Lawrence Mugambi in proceedings involving police restrictions during demonstrations. The order did not simply prohibit every form of police security operation. Rather, it placed requirements on the police concerning notification to the public before emergency road barricades or roadblocks were put in place. 

Katiba Institute subsequently challenged the police actions, arguing that the National Police Service had failed to comply with the court's directions.

Why Kanja was found in contempt

On September 17, Justice Patricia Nyaundi found Kanja personally in contempt of court. The judge determined that he had failed to ensure compliance with the existing order by officers under his command.

The court considered the fact that police had prior knowledge of the planned demonstrations and therefore rejected the argument that the roadblocks were simply spontaneous responses to an unexpected security emergency. The court found that the required public advisory had not been issued before the barricades were put in place. 

Kanja had disputed the allegation of wilful disobedience. The police position included an argument that there was no evidence that he had personally authorised the specific roadblocks and that officers were acting within their security responsibilities.

However, the court concluded that the Inspector General had a responsibility to ensure that officers under his command complied with the binding court order. Justice Nyaundi therefore directed Kanja to appear personally on September 28 for mitigation and sentencing. 

What happened in court today

When Kanja returned to court today, the proceedings moved to the mitigation and sentencing stage.

Kanja appeared personally before Justice Nyaundi and gave assurances concerning compliance with court orders in the future. He indicated that the relevant court order would be cascaded within the National Police Service and that officers under his command would be reminded of their obligation to obey court directives. 

The judge considered these assurances, together with Kanja's personal attendance and the presence of senior police officers.

Justice Nyaundi ultimately decided that there was no need to impose a punitive sentence on Kanja on this occasion. Instead, she discharged him with a stern warning. 

The decision means that Kanja will not serve a custodial sentence as a result of today's contempt proceedings.

Strong warning from the court

Although the court spared Kanja from punishment, Justice Nyaundi made it clear that the decision should not be interpreted as permission for similar conduct in the future.

The judge warned that if there is another violation of the relevant court order, the court could consider a custodial sentence against the Inspector General.

The warning was therefore a significant part of today's outcome. Kanja has been discharged, but the court has placed him on notice that future non-compliance could result in a much more serious consequence. 

The court also directed the police to respect and comply with the order going forward. Citizen Digital reported that the judge emphasised the importance of compliance with court orders and noted that Kanja had assured the court that there would be no recurrence. 

Freedom of movement at the centre of the dispute

The case was not only about roadblocks or police procedures. The court also considered the effect of the police actions on constitutional rights.

Justice Nyaundi's earlier findings touched on the constitutional right to freedom of movement. Unexpected road closures and barricades can affect workers, students, businesses, motorists and other members of the public who depend on access to public roads.

The court therefore considered the public-notice requirement important because citizens need information when significant restrictions are imposed on movement.

Today's decision also reinforced the principle that the National Police Service is expected to operate within the law and comply with court orders. 

Importance of the Inspector General's responsibility

One of the major issues emerging from the proceedings is the responsibility of the Inspector General for actions undertaken by officers within the National Police Service.

The September 17 ruling placed personal responsibility on Kanja after the court concluded that he had failed to ensure compliance with the order.

This does not necessarily mean that the court found Kanja personally erected every roadblock. Instead, the proceedings focused on his responsibility as the head of the National Police Service to ensure that officers under his command observe binding judicial orders. 

That distinction is important in understanding the case. The court was examining institutional compliance and the responsibility of the police leadership to implement judicial directives.

Senior police officers accompany Kanja

Kanja's appearance today also attracted attention because he was accompanied by senior police officials.

Among those who accompanied him were Deputy Inspector General Eliud Lagat and DCI Director Mohamed Amin. Their appearance underscored the significance of the proceedings for the National Police Service. 

The court's decision therefore has implications beyond the individual case. It serves as a reminder to police commanders and officers that court orders affecting police operations must be implemented.

The judge's warning also makes clear that future violations could expose the police leadership to more severe judicial consequences.

What the discharge means

Kanja's discharge should be understood carefully.

The court did not erase the earlier contempt finding. Reports on today's decision indicate that the court had already found him in contempt and then decided, after considering mitigation, to pardon or discharge him without imposing a punitive sentence on this occasion. 

In practical terms, the immediate consequence is that Kanja walks away without a custodial sentence arising from this case.

At the same time, the stern warning creates a clear expectation that the police must comply with the relevant court order in future.

The judge also indicated that the court would not hesitate to consider imprisonment if similar conduct occurred again. 

Rule of law and police accountability

The case has also renewed discussion about the relationship between national security responsibilities and the rule of law.

The police have the responsibility to maintain security and public order, particularly during demonstrations. At the same time, police operations are subject to the Constitution, legislation and court orders.

Today's proceedings demonstrate that courts can hold senior public officials accountable where they determine that binding judicial directives have not been followed.

The case therefore highlights the importance of communication between security agencies and the public whenever major restrictions on movement are necessary.

The way forward

Following today's decision, the National Police Service is expected to ensure that officers understand and comply with the court's requirements concerning road barricades and public advisories.

Kanja's undertaking before the court will also be important going forward. He assured the judge that the order would be communicated within the police service and that steps would be taken to prevent a recurrence. 

The court has effectively placed responsibility on the police leadership to ensure that its officers do not repeat the conduct that led to the contempt proceedings.

Any future dispute over similar actions could therefore be examined against the backdrop of today's warning.