A group of six Kenyans has moved to court to challenge the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) over its refusal to process recall petitions against Members of Parliament.

The petitioners Newton Boore, Dennis Mwaki, Morris Mawira, Agnes Mwende, Seth Kinoti, and Christine Kanana want the High Court to compel the newly reconstituted IEBC, chaired by Erastus Ethekon, to begin acting on recall petitions as provided for under Article 104 of the Constitution.

In court documents filed by KMK Africa Advocates LLP, the petitioners argue that Parliament has deliberately failed to enact legislation required to operationalise the constitutional provision, while the IEBC has used this legislative gap as an excuse to avoid processing legitimate recall attempts.

The petitioners accuse the electoral body of creating ‘an artificial legal lacuna’ to shield underperforming or unpopular legislators.

They assert that the Constitution already provides for the right to recall, and the absence of enabling legislation cannot be used to suspend or nullify that right.

At the heart of the dispute is a recall petition against Tharaka Nithi Senator Mwenda Gataya, whom the six accuse of discrimination, abuse of office, misconduct, and failure to conduct public participation in the drafting of the controversial Mug Bean Bill, 2022 commonly known as the Ndengu Bill.

“We wish to free him from such duties so we can give the seat to a Senator who will enact laws that help the people of Tharaka,” the petition reads.

The court papers argue that once a recall petition meets the legal threshold, the IEBC has no authority to reject or ignore it.

They further accuse MPs of committing a ‘double sin by failing to enact the required law and shielding themselves from democratic oversight.

“The intentional refusal by MPs to enact or operationalize the necessary legislation makes it difficult for Kenyans to pursue political causes and make political choices they identify with,” the petitioners state.

“This impinges on their political rights under Article 38.”

The petition also raises questions about unequal treatment of elected officials. The petitioners argue that while the law allows the recall of Governors and Members of County Assemblies, no similar framework exists for MPs and Senators despite the similarity in their oversight and legislative roles.

“There is no justification for permitting the recall of MCAs while sparing MPs, who exercise a parallel legislative mandate at the national level,” the court papers read.

Also named in the petition are other legislators facing possible recall, including National Assembly Majority Leader Kimani Ichung’wah, Meru North MP Rahim Dawood, and Nairobi Woman Representative Esther Passaris. The petitioners say the right to remove non-performing MPs is central to democratic accountability.

In a supporting affidavit, lead petitioner Newton Boore said the group had written to IEBC CEO Marjan Hussein Marjan in 2024, asking the commission to begin the recall process. At the time, Marjan responded that the commission lacked commissioners and was therefore not fully constituted.

A follow-up letter sent on July 23, 2025 after the new commissioners were sworn in went unanswered.

Boore argues that the delay and inaction by the IEBC are unconstitutional: “The failure by the 1st respondent [IEBC] to act on our requests is akin to making the constitutional right afforded under Article 104 illusory. This amounts to suspending the said constitutional provision, which action is illegal.”

The group says the recall window for current MPs closes in August 2026, and time is running out to hold legislators accountable especially in light of mounting public anger over MPs who supported the now-withdrawn Finance Bill 2024.

High Court Judge Chacha Mwita has ordered that the IEBC and other respondents be served and appear before him on September 17, 2025. All parties are required to file their responses and submissions ahead of that hearing. By Irene Mwangi, Capital News

In July 2025, US Senator James Risch introduced a bold amendment in Congress proposing the reconsideration of Kenya’s designation as a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA). This privileged status, awarded to a select group of countries, allows access to US military support, strategic collaboration and defence related advantages. But Risch’s amendment is not simply about security cooperation. It is a powerful statement that human rights must be at the heart of global partnerships.

For decades, Kenya has enjoyed international respect as a democratic leader in Africa. From regular elections every five years, to enactment of a new strong constitution, to smooth power transitions, the country has been a shining example for Africa. Further, it has hosted refugee populations, mediated regional peace processes and spoken on global stages as a champion of multilateralism. At the beginning of 2025, Kenya became a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, a recognition of its supposed commitment to human rights, dignity and justice.

However, today Kenya stands at risk of losing that moral standing. The State’s violent crackdown on peaceful protests, misuse of anti-terrorism laws against youth and troubling foreign policy alignments are dragging its reputation into question. Kenya’s descent began with the State’s heavy-handed response to youth-led Gen Z protests in 2024 and 2025. Sparked by discontent over taxation, corruption and growing inequality, these protests were a manifestation of civic courage by young Kenyans peacefully demanding accountability. Instead of engaging these voices, the State deployed anti-riot police, snipers and plainclothes agents. Protectors were abducted in broad daylight, held without charge, tortured and in some cases, killed. 

The most shocking abuse however has come in the form of terrorism-related charges being brought against young demonstrators and human rights defenders. The government used the very laws meant to protect national security as tools to silence democratic expression. This is a dangerous precedent. By redefining peaceful protest as terrorism, Kenya is eroding the very principles it once stood for, principles it committed to when it joined the UN Human Rights Council.

What message does it send to the world when a country entrusted with upholding global human rights is itself criminalising civic participation? The implications go beyond morality. They include the economy as it communicates that Kenya is struggling with terror-related issues and this sends shockwaves through investor communities, development partners and global financial institutions. Countries perceived as insecure, politically unstable, unpredictable or repressive are automatically downgraded in risk assessments. 

Already, some businesses are reconsidering long-term operations. International development funding is under scrutiny. The world is asking whether Kenya is still safe, not just for tourists or investors, but also for its own people.

Compounding these issues is the State’s involvement in extrajudicial killings, particularly during the Gen Z protests. VOCAL Africa confirmed that almost 50 young Kenyans were killed in the bloodiest protest day in the country’s history – July 7, 2025 (Saba Saba). Almost all of them were unarmed but still were shot at close range by police or unidentified units in civilian vehicles. Bodies of abducted protesters have turned up with signs of torture. Families have been left grieving with no answers, no justice and no accountability.

As if the killings were not enough, the country’s security chiefs, led by Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen, are on record confirming to the killer police units that they (police) will be shielded from investigations and that the State will not cooperate with investigative agencies such as the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA). This is a damning embarrassment to a country that purports to want to lead on human rights matters globally. 

Such brutality not only violates Kenya’s Constitution but places the country in direct breach of its international obligations, including those under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. For a nation serving on the UN Human Rights Council, these actions are indefensible. How can Kenya advocate for global human rights standards while failing to uphold them at home?

International concern over Kenya’s direction has also grown due to its perceived alignment with the Sudanese militia group Rapid Support Forces (RSF) which is accused of war crimes, sexual violence, ethnic cleansing and genocide. Despite global efforts to isolate the RSF, Kenya has reportedly welcomed its leaders, facilitated political engagements and offered itself as a platform for RSF-backed negotiations. This is a diplomatic failure of the highest order. It undermines regional stability, emboldens war criminals and tarnishes Kenya’s reputation as a neutral mediator. Instead of leading peace efforts in Sudan, Kenya now appears to be legitimising the architects of Sudan’s suffering. 

Kenya must choose whether it will remain a rights-based democracy, accountable to its people and partners, or drift into the orbit of authoritarianism. Being a country that once enjoyed global admiration for its leadership in democracy, peacekeeping and human rights, it has rapidly deteriorated into a perfect example of how a country can easily and so fast fall into repression and subjugation of its population.

Today, Kenya’s reputation is in crisis. From killing its youth and criminalising protests, to hosting war criminals and undermining its own Constitution, the country is moving away from the ideals that earned it its global standing. Kenya’s international stature was built not just on its geography or economy, but on its moral standing. That standing is now fading. If the government continues to criminalise dissent, use trumped up terror related charges on critics, embrace authoritarian partners and condone State violence, it will not only lose its allies’ support but also lose the respect of the world.

What Kenyans must now decide is whether to allow the government to continue on this destructive path, which will leave the country locked out of international human rights elite bodies, or stand firm in defence of the nation’s integrity. The choice is ours. Let us choose to reclaim our place on the global human rights stage before it is too late.  

Mr Khalid is the CEO of Vocal Africa, The Standard

Killings between July 9 and 21 in 4 villages in Rutshuru territory of eastern province of North Kivu were among deadliest since M23’s resurgence in 2022, UN human rights office.

At least 319 civilians were killed by M23 rebels in a series of attacks in four villages in the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s eastern province of North Kivu last month, the UN human rights office said Wednesday, citing firsthand accounts.

The killings between July 9 and 21 in four villages in Rutshuru territory were among the deadliest since M23’s resurgence in 2022, the UN human rights office said in a statement.

The majority of the victims, at least 48 women and 19 children, were local farmers who had been camping in their fields during planting season.

“I am appalled by the attacks on civilians by the M23 and other armed groups in eastern DRC amid continued fighting, despite the ceasefire that was recently signed in Doha,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk said.

He called for an end to all attacks on civilians and accountability for those responsible.

The Congolese government and M23 rebels signed a declaration on July 19 in the Qatari capital of Doha, following the June 27 Washington peace deal between Congo and Rwanda.

The M23 rebel group, which is at the heart of the conflict in eastern Congo, controls significant territory, including the provincial capitals of Goma and Bukavu, which it seized earlier this year.

The UN, Kinshasa, and others accuse neighbouring Rwanda of supporting M23, which Kigali denies.

Turk urged signatories and facilitators of the Doha and Washington agreements to provide immediate safety, security, and real progress for Congolese civilians still affected by the conflicts.

He also condemned attacks on civilians by other armed groups, such as the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), a group affiliated with the Islamic State in Central Africa, and the Cooperative for the Development of Congo (CODECO) militia. By Mevlüt Özkan, Anadolu Agency

US Office of Special Counsel probing whether Jack Smith violated Hatch Act, which restricts government employees from political involvement

HOUSTON, United States

The federal government announced Saturday that it is investigating whether former Trump prosecutor Jack Smith was involved in alleged illegal political activity, according to multiple news outlets.

The US Office of Special Counsel said it was probing allegations that Smith violated the Hatch Act, which restricts government employees from political involvement, according to NBC News.

The investigation comes in the wake of Trump allies alleging that Smith went after Trump without legal standing to derail his 2024 presidential campaign.

Smith was appointed by former Attorney General Merrick Garland three days before Trump announced his reelection bid in November 2022. He was tasked with taking over two investigations into Trump's handling of classified documents and his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to Joe Biden.

Both cases resulted in criminal charges against Trump, who pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing. But the cases were closed after Trump won reelection.

"Jack Smith’s legal actions were nothing more than a tool for the Biden and (former Vice President Kamala) Harris campaigns," Republican Sen. Tom Cotton posted on X earlier in the week. "This isn’t just unethical, it is very likely illegal campaign activity from a public office."

"Special Counsel Smith pushed for an out-of-the-ordinary, rushed trial for President Trump, with jury selection to begin just two weeks before the Iowa caucuses. No other case of this magnitude and complexity would come to trial this quickly," Cotton added.

Smith ultimately resigned after Trump won the 2024 election, but defended his actions in his final report on the investigation, which was published in January.

"The ultimate decision to bring charges against Mr. Trump was mine. It is a decision I stand behind fully," Smith wrote, adding that Garland nor anyone else at the Department of Justice (DOJ) pushed him to prosecute Trump.

"To all who know me well, the claim from Mr. Trump that my decisions as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in a word, laughable," Smith said.

He said he believed he would have scored a conviction against Trump if the legal battles had played out in court.

"The throughline of all of Mr. Trump’s criminal efforts was deceit-knowingly false claims of election fraud-and the evidence shows that Mr. Trump used these lies as a weapon to defeat a federal government function foundational to the United States’ democratic process," said Smith. "Until Mr. Trump obstructed it, this democratic process had operated in a peaceful and orderly manner for more than 130 years."

The Office of Special Counsel is an independent agency and can only research Smith’s actions and seek disciplinary actions. Investigators can then present findings to the Justice Department to pursue any possible criminal charges. Anadolu Agency