Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja is expected before the High Court on Monday, September 28, 2026, for mitigation and sentencing after being found in contempt of court over police roadblocks and barricades erected in Nairobi during the June 25 commemorations. The appearance has drawn attention because senior police officers have accompanied the Inspector General as he faces the court process. 

The proceedings arise from a dispute over the National Police Service's compliance with a court order requiring advance public notice before emergency roadblocks or barricades are erected on public roads.

Kanja's appearance before the court

The High Court, through Justice Patricia Nyaundi, previously found Kanja personally in contempt of an order issued by Justice Lawrence Mugambi on July 9, 2025. The earlier order required the Inspector General and officers under his command to issue a timely advisory to the public before emergency barricading of roads that could interfere with access to Nairobi's Central Business District and other public roads. 

Justice Nyaundi directed Kanja to appear personally for mitigation and sentencing. This means the court is now considering what should follow the finding of contempt, with Kanja and his legal team having an opportunity to make submissions before the sentence is determined.

The presence of other senior police commanders at court underscores the institutional significance of the proceedings. However, the contempt finding is against Kanja personally, based on the court's conclusion that he failed to ensure compliance with the existing order.

How the case began

The case was brought by Katiba Institute following police operations in Nairobi on June 25, 2026, during commemorations connected to the second anniversary of the June 2024 Finance Bill protests.

According to the court proceedings, police mounted barricades and roadblocks at several points around Nairobi. The measures affected access to the CBD and major routes, with locations mentioned in court proceedings including Roysambu, Kangemi, Ngong Road, City Mortuary Roundabout, Integrity Centre, Uhuru Highway, Moi Avenue, Parliament Road, Karen, Kitengela, Ruiru and Githurai. 

Katiba Institute argued that the police action breached the existing court order because members of the public had not been given the required advance advisory.

The organisation maintained that the restrictions affected movement and disrupted people travelling to work, accessing services and conducting their normal activities.

What the court order required

The July 9, 2025 order was significant because it did not simply concern whether police could respond to security threats. Instead, it established a requirement concerning public notification before emergency roadblocks or barricades were erected.

The court found that the requirement was clear and imposed an obligation on the Inspector General to ensure that officers under his command complied.

Justice Nyaundi rejected the interpretation advanced on Kanja's behalf that the order mainly concerned pre-planned or structural road closures. The court held that the obligation to provide a timely advisory also applied to emergency barricading. 

The court therefore concluded that the failure to issue an advisory before the June 25 roadblocks amounted to disobedience of the order.

Police defence in the case

Kanja's side disputed the allegation of deliberate disobedience.

A replying affidavit filed on his behalf by Nairobi Regional Police Commander Issa Mohammed Mohamud argued that the roadblocks and security checkpoints were responses to emerging security concerns rather than the result of a centrally coordinated operation.

The defence also argued that the July 2025 order did not impose an absolute prohibition on roadblocks, security checkpoints or traffic diversions. It maintained that police were acting within their mandate in response to security concerns on June 25. 

The court, however, found that the central issue was the failure to provide the required public advisory. Justice Nyaundi held that internal police procedures could not override a binding court order.

Why Kanja was held personally responsible

One of the major issues in the ruling was whether the Inspector General could be held responsible for actions carried out by officers under his command.

The court concluded that Kanja had a responsibility to ensure compliance with the court order.

Justice Nyaundi found that Kanja had not adequately demonstrated what specific measures he had put in place to ensure that officers complied with the requirement to notify the public before barricading roads. 

This aspect of the ruling is important because the National Police Service operates through numerous commands and units. The court's reasoning focused on the constitutional and administrative responsibility attached to the office of Inspector General.

The finding therefore did not depend simply on establishing that Kanja personally erected a barricade. Instead, the court considered whether he had fulfilled his responsibility to ensure that police officers under his command complied with the binding judicial order.

Constitutional issues raised

The case also touches on several constitutional provisions.

Article 39 of the Constitution protects freedom of movement, while Article 37 protects the right to peaceful assembly, demonstration, picketing and petition.

The court also referred to Article 10, which sets out national values and principles of governance, including the rule of law, transparency and accountability.

Article 244 establishes constitutional standards for the National Police Service, including professionalism, discipline and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The court also considered Article 24, which governs limitations on rights and freedoms. Restrictions must meet constitutional requirements, including being reasonable and justifiable. 

Consequently, the proceedings have significance beyond the individual case involving Kanja because they examine how security operations should be conducted while respecting constitutional rights and existing court orders.

The significance of the senior police officers accompanying Kanja

The appearance of senior police commanders alongside the Inspector General gives the proceedings considerable institutional attention.

Kanja is the head of the National Police Service, meaning that his appearance before the High Court places the issue of police compliance with judicial orders directly before the country's security leadership.

The presence of other police bosses can also be viewed as an indication that the matter is being closely followed within the police command structure. Nevertheless, it is important to distinguish between accompanying or supporting the Inspector General and being parties to the contempt proceedings themselves.

The court's finding concerns Kanja's responsibility in relation to the order. Other officers should therefore not automatically be described as having been found guilty of contempt simply because they appeared in court with him.

Mitigation before sentencing

Monday's proceedings are particularly important because they concern mitigation and sentencing.

Mitigation gives a person who has been found in contempt an opportunity to address the court before the final sentence is determined. Kanja's legal representatives can make submissions concerning the circumstances surrounding the alleged breach and any other matters the court should consider when deciding the appropriate sentence.

The court will then determine the consequences under the applicable legal framework.

It is therefore important not to assume in advance what sentence will be imposed. The fact that Kanja has been found in contempt does not by itself establish what final penalty the court will issue.

Rule of law and police accountability

The case has renewed public discussion about the relationship between the police and the Judiciary.

Courts issue orders that are binding on individuals, public institutions and government officials. The court's position in this case is that security considerations do not eliminate the obligation to comply with an existing judicial order.

Katiba Institute Executive Director Nora Mbagathi said the organisation was concerned about what it described as the increasing need to use contempt proceedings to secure compliance with judicial decisions. VOCAL Africa Executive Director Hussein Khalid also welcomed the ruling, describing it as important for accountability. These are statements from the organisations involved in or commenting on the proceedings and should be distinguished from the court's own findings. 

The case therefore illustrates a broader constitutional principle: government agencies, including security institutions, are subject to the law and to valid court orders.

Impact on policing during demonstrations

The proceedings could also influence how police communicate with the public during future demonstrations and other situations requiring emergency security measures.

Police frequently have to make rapid decisions when dealing with security threats, large gatherings, demonstrations and traffic disruptions. At the same time, the court's ruling emphasises that emergency action must still be undertaken within the limits established by law and court orders.

The requirement for timely public advisories is particularly relevant because road closures can affect thousands of people. Workers, students, patients, businesses, motorists and public transport users may need information to make alternative arrangements.

The court's reasoning suggests that communication with the public is not merely an administrative issue when a court order expressly requires it.

What happens next

Kanja's appearance on September 28 is therefore an important stage in the proceedings. He has already been found in contempt; the current stage concerns mitigation and sentencing.

The court will hear the submissions before determining the appropriate outcome.

The case also highlights the responsibilities attached to the office of Inspector General. Regardless of the eventual sentence, the proceedings have placed emphasis on the obligation of the National Police Service to comply with judicial orders while carrying out its constitutional mandate.

The case began with roadblocks erected during the June 25, 2026 commemorations, but its wider implications concern movement, public notification, policing, constitutional rights and the authority of the courts. 

For the police leadership, the proceedings provide a significant reminder that operational decisions must be reconciled with constitutional requirements and binding judicial directions. For the public, the case centres on the extent to which security measures affecting movement and public roads must be communicated in advance.

As Kanja appears before the High Court accompanied by fellow police leaders, attention is now focused on the mitigation submissions and the sentence that Justice Nyaundi will ultimately impose.