In the wake of violence that marred the June 25 protests, Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen sparked a storm with his directive to police: shoot anyone attempting to storm a station.

He made the remarks on Thursday, June 26, 2025, during a tour of several damaged police facilities. The reaction was swift, jeers, boos, immediate questions. 

But the real issue isn’t his choice of words; it’s the blurred boundary between legal force and lethal overreach.

Legal thresholds, not emotions

To be clear, the chaos was real. Police stations were set ablaze, firearms looted, and officers overwhelmed by organised attacks disguised as protest.

These weren’t symbolic demonstrations, they were targeted strikes on the state’s security nerve centers. But even in the face of such aggression, is a blanket shoot-to-kill order justifiable?

Kenya’s legal framework offers a measured view. The Sixth Schedule of the National Police Service Act (2011) outlines how and when an officer can use lethal force. 

The instruction is deliberate: attempt non-violent means first. Firearms are a last resort, only when necessary to protect life or in defense against imminent danger.

Even then, the response must be proportional and preceded by a clear warning, unless doing so risks greater harm.

Between law and overreach

The Constitution reinforces these boundaries. Article 26(2) guarantees every individual’s right to life, while Article 238(2) mandates that national security must uphold the rule of law and human rights.

These aren’t theoretical ideals, they are binding standards. When a public official instructs police to bypass those protections without due process, it invites a dangerous culture of impunity.

Murkomen’s statement “Anyone who approaches a police station should be shot” wasn’t simply a lapse in rhetoric.

It risked collapsing the nuance between law enforcement and state violence, especially when issued amid heightened tension and emotional grief. 

Public on edge

These directives also endanger the very officers they intend to protect. Police who follow such orders without verifying their legality can be held personally liable.

They risk disciplinary action, lawsuits, or even criminal prosecution for unlawful use of force, regardless of rank or instruction.

Moreover, blanket orders breed fear, mistrust, and retaliation. They erode community cooperation, embolden rogue responses, and shift the security lens from service to suppression.

Kenya must tread carefully. Upholding order should never mean discarding the Constitution. The fight for national stability must include an equally fierce defence of human rights. By William Muthoka, People Daily