Aasai

Former Chief Justice David Maraga has broken his silence over the recent withdrawal and partial restoration of his security, which he described as a disturbing move by the state. Maraga revealed in a televised interview on Wednesday, July 2, 2025, that while some aspects of his protection have resumed, the reinstatement remains incomplete. His official driver has returned, and the security officer stationed at his residential gate has also resumed duties. However, one of his personal bodyguards is yet to be reinstated, leaving his security detail incomplete and raising questions about the motive behind the states actions.

According to Maraga, the withdrawal began without any prior notice or explanation. He stated that his driver and entire security team were suddenly recalled to their respective stations, a move that caught him completely off guard. What disturbed him most was the lack of formal communication or justification, which is usually standard practice for someone of his former status. “This wasn’t just a routine reassignment,” he noted. “It was a calculated disruption, especially considering the timing.”

The former Chief Justice strongly believes the decision was influenced by his involvement in the June 25, 2025 protest, which he joined in solidarity with victims and families affected by the 2024 anti-finance bill demonstrations. He walked alongside grieving parents and young people to remember those who lost their lives or went missing during the violent crackdown on peaceful protests. His public appearance, he suggests, may have angered powerful figures within government institutions who saw his action as a threat or challenge to the status quo.

On June 27, just two days after the protest, Maraga penned a strongly-worded letter addressed to Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen and the Inspector General of Police, Douglas Kanja. In the letter, he protested the abrupt recall of his security officers and questioned the reasoning behind such a drastic and uncommunicated move. Maraga stressed that he had continuously received state-provided security since his retirement in January 2021 under the provisions of the Retirement Benefits (Deputy President and Designated State Officers) Act, which guarantees such protection.

Detailing the manner in which his security was withdrawn, Maraga explained that on the same day of the protest, one officer was told not to report for duty and instead sign the firearm register. When the officer complied, he was then informed that he had been scheduled for a training session. By the next morning, the entire security team had been officially recalled—again, without any prior consultation or warning to Maraga himself. He found this irregular and inconsistent with protocol.

He went on to stress that, under normal circumstances, any such changes to his protection would be done through a formal engagement process with him. The failure to follow this procedure, he said, raises serious concerns about the political motivations behind the move. “This is not just about my security; its about setting a dangerous precedent where state resources are manipulated for retaliation,” he warned.

Furthermore, Maraga believes his vocal criticism of police misconduct may have contributed to the decision. He recently condemned the unexplained death of teacher Albert Ojwang, who died while in police custody. Maraga had called for accountability and transparency in that case, accusing the police of negligence and abuse of power. His stance on issues of justice and human rights, he suggested, may have provoked those within the state who prefer silence and conformity.

Despite the partial reinstatement, Maraga insists that the integrity of the system must be questioned. He emphasized that no state officer, past or present, should be punished for standing with citizens or speaking truth to power. He reaffirmed his commitment to justice and constitutionalism, warning that intimidation will not silence his advocacy. The former Chief Justice concluded by calling for transparency and responsibility within government institutions to uphold the rule of law and protect democratic space.