Aasai

Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Renson Ingonga has defended the decision to prosecute anti-government protesters under terrorism laws, insisting that the move is grounded in law and not political influence. Speaking during a press briefing in Nairobi on Thursday, Ingonga said the charges stem from the deliberate destruction of property, including government installations, which under Kenyan law constitutes acts of terrorism.

His remarks come amid mounting criticism from civil society groups, opposition politicians, and legal professionals, who accuse the State of using counter-terror laws to suppress dissent and stifle freedom of assembly. Critics argue that such heavy-handed legal tactics are being weaponized to intimidate and silence citizens engaging in lawful protest.

Ingonga rejected these claims, emphasizing that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) operates independently. “The Decision to Charge Guidelines are the most important document for the ODPP and for any prosecutor. They emphasize evidence-based prosecution to ensure we charge the right person,” he said. He stressed that prosecution decisions must remain uniform across the country and free from pressure, fear, or favour.

The debate intensified following the recent arrest of renowned activist Boniface Mwangi. Police accused him of “facilitating terrorist acts” during the June 25 nationwide protests, which were held to honour victims of last years deadly tax demonstrations. Authorities also claimed Mwangi was in unlawful possession of ammunition.

However, in a twist that fueled public outrage, Mwangi was later charged only with unlawful possession of ammunition without a valid firearm certificate. Many interpreted the development as a backtrack by the DPP’s office, following an intense backlash from the public and human rights organizations. The incident raised fresh questions about whether initial terrorism accusations were politically influenced.

But the DPP remained firm in his explanation, stating: “If demonstrations are against the Executive and people are charged with terrorism, it does not mean there is government pressure on me. Terrorism is not limited to guns or bombings; destroying property, especially government property, also qualifies as terrorism.” He reminded critics that the current anti-terror law was passed by Parliament in 2014—ironically, some of the same legislators now questioning its application.

At the centre of this legal storm are also 37 youth who had earlier been charged with terrorism-related offences in connection to the June 25 and July 7 protests. They were released on Thursday on a cash bail of Ksh.50,000 or an alternative bond of Ksh.200,000 each. Many of them had been detained for several days without clear charges, prompting legal and humanitarian concerns.

The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has been vocal in opposing the charges, saying protest-related arrests should not fall under terrorism laws unless there is clear evidence of planning or intent to cause large-scale harm. Former Chief Justice David Maraga has also condemned the move, warning that such tactics threaten constitutional freedoms and the independence of the Judiciary.

Despite the backlash, DPP Ingonga reiterated that his office remains committed to justice, guided strictly by evidence and legal principle. He urged the public to separate political rhetoric from legal processes and affirmed that no one will be charged unfairly or unjustly under his watch.