The dramatic outburst forced Justice Alexander Muteti to briefly halt proceedings before restoring calm and directing Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja and Director of Criminal Investigations (DCI) Mohamed Amin to personally appear before him on Monday to explain the whereabouts of the three missing men.

The emotional scenes erupted moments after lawyers representing the Inspector General and the DCI informed the court that the two security chiefs had failed to honour summons requiring them to appear in person because they were attending an urgent security planning meeting.

State counsel Paul Nyamodi told the court that the Inspector General and the DCI Director were unavailable due to official engagements and requested the court to assign another date for their attendance.

“The Inspector General and the DCI Director are involved in an urgent security planning meeting. If the court still requires their attendance, we request another date and time when they can appear,” Nyamodi submitted.

He further told the court that senior police officers, including the OCSs of Buruburu and Ruai police stations, the Buruburu Sub-County Criminal Investigations Officer and the Nairobi Regional Police Commander, had attended the proceedings on behalf of the respondents.

Nyamodi maintained that the three missing men, Macmillan Kiarie Mugo, Evans Otieno Omondi and Michael Oloo Osoro, are not being held by either the National Police Service or the Directorate of Criminal Investigations.

“It is our clients’ position that the three missing persons are not in police custody,” he said while seeking time to file responses to the habeas corpus applications.

The State also argued that the applications filed before the court did not meet the legal threshold for the orders sought.

Lawyers representing the families, led by Advocate Abner Mango, opposed the request, insisting that the country’s top police commanders had a constitutional duty to obey court orders and personally account for the fate of the missing men.

Mango argued that the Inspector General and the DCI Director head institutions with the capacity to determine the whereabouts of every Kenyan.

“The Inspector General and the DCI Director have the apparatus to know where every Kenyan is. If they say these three men are not in police custody, then they should tell this court who has them. Cases of enforced disappearances have become too many, and this is an opportunity for the security chiefs to shed light on the fate of the victims,” Mango submitted.

As Justice Muteti prepared to deliver his ruling, a woman believed to be the wife of one of the missing men stood up and broke into tears.

“Where is my husband? It is now 25 days since he disappeared. I have searched every police station in Nairobi and nobody can tell me where he is,” she cried.

Her emotional appeal sparked chants from relatives and activists who demanded justice, forcing court orderlies to intervene after one activist stripped naked in protest while others waved flags and shouted slogans inside the courtroom.

After order was restored, Justice Muteti urged the families to remain calm and allow the legal process to take its course.

“When you come to court, have faith that we are undertaking a process recognised by the law. Let us maintain decorum so that everyone leaves knowing they have been heard. When this matter comes up for hearing, both sides will be given an opportunity to present their case, and the court will render its decision,” the judge said.

He then directed Inspector General Kanja and DCI Director Amin to appear before him in person on Monday, July 20, at 1 p.m., warning that they must attend without fail.

The judge also gave the two security chiefs until Friday to file replying affidavits to the habeas corpus applications lodged by the families.

The applications were filed by Rose Sopi, the wife of Michael Oloo Osoro; Pamela Aloo, the wife of Evans Otieno Omondi; and Beatrice Wanjira, the mother of Macmillan Kiarie Mugo, together with Siasa Place.

They allege that the three men were abducted in separate incidents by armed men believed to be security officers before disappearing without trace.

According to court documents, Oloo was allegedly seized from a barbershop in Buruburu, Otieno disappeared after being picked up from a shop in Ruai, while Kiarie was allegedly bundled into a vehicle shortly after leaving his home in Githurai.

Through lawyers led by former Law Society of Kenya President Faith Odhiambo and Advocate Abner Mango, the families are asking the High Court to compel the State to produce the three men alive or dead or explain where they are being held.

The post ‘Where Is My Husband?’ Tears, Protest as Judge Summons IG Kanja, DCI Boss Over Three Missing Men appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In a ruling delivered on Friday, Justice Alexander Muteti directed that Ngache be released from police custody by 5 p.m., effectively overturning an earlier order by the Milimani Law Courts that had permitted detectives to hold her for three days to complete investigations.

The judge also directed that the matter be mentioned on Monday, when the High Court is expected to issue further directions on the constitutional issues raised in the case.

Ngache, popularly known online as Princess Halima, was arrested on June 30 during what the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) described as an intelligence-led operation in Kazandani, Bamburi, Mombasa County.

Detectives from the DCI’s Serious Crimes Unit allege she is linked to the verified X account @sholard_mancity, which allegedly published detailed information about President William Ruto’s international travel, including flight routes, destinations and aircraft details during recent official trips to Europe.

According to investigators, the account published posts claiming that President Ruto travelled aboard a chartered private jet from Belgium to Norway on June 8, later flew from Norway to Finland on June 10, and on June 25 allegedly departed Kenya with plans to board another private aircraft in Madagascar.

Court documents filed by Corporal Edwin Metto state that the motive behind the publication of the information remains unknown.

“…the motive of the alleged tracking remains unknown and the information published by the said user has caused apprehension on the person of the Head of State as well as Kenyan citizens,” the investigating officer stated in an affidavit filed before court.

The DCI maintains that the alleged posts may amount to offences under the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, arguing that publication of the travel movements of protected persons raises significant national security concerns.

Following her arrest, detectives recovered two mobile phones, a Dell laptop, a Tecno tablet and three flash drives, which they sought to subject to forensic examination.

Investigators initially requested seven days to complete the analysis and obtain information from other agencies before forwarding the investigation file to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP).

However, Senior Principal Magistrate Theresa Nyangena declined the request and instead granted detectives three days, finding that the shorter period would be sufficient to complete the remaining investigations.

One of the central issues raised during the proceedings was that the X account under investigation allegedly remained active even after Ngache had been arrested and transported from Mombasa to Nairobi.

The DCI argued that the continued activity suggested more than one individual could have been operating the account.

Ngache, however, relied on the same fact to dispute investigators’ claims that she was solely responsible for the account.

She told the court that despite all her electronic devices being seized, fresh posts continued appearing on the platform while she remained in police custody, casting doubt on allegations that she was its administrator.

That argument has become one of the major points likely to feature prominently as the constitutional challenge proceeds.

Ngache has also questioned the manner of her arrest, arguing that she was apprehended without being informed of the reasons for her arrest and without a warrant before being transferred from Mombasa to Nairobi.

The case has attracted widespread public attention because it sits at the intersection of national security and constitutional freedoms.

While investigators argue that publishing real-time or detailed information concerning the movements of a sitting Head of State could expose protected persons to security risks, digital rights advocates have increasingly questioned whether authorities are stretching cybercrime laws to criminalise online speech.

The matter also comes only days after another significant High Court decision striking down provisions of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, which had granted authorities broad powers to block websites without court orders.

That judgment reaffirmed constitutional protections on freedom of expression and access to information, further intensifying debate over the scope of digital regulation in Kenya.

Legal experts say the outcome of Ngache’s case could shape future investigations involving open-source intelligence, social media reporting and the publication of publicly available aviation data.

Globally, flight tracking has become increasingly accessible through publicly available aviation platforms, allowing users to monitor aircraft movements using transponder signals.

Governments, however, often distinguish between publicly available aviation data and the deliberate dissemination of information involving protected state officials where security considerations arise.

In Kenya, the DCI insists its investigation is not aimed at restricting legitimate freedom of expression but at determining whether any criminal offences were committed under existing cybercrime laws.

For now, Justice Muteti’s ruling means Ngache will regain her freedom while detectives continue their investigations.

Whether prosecutors ultimately approve criminal charges, and whether the courts draw a new constitutional line between digital expression and national security, will begin to emerge when the matter returns to the High Court on Monday.

The post Court Orders Release of Woman at Centre of President Ruto Flight-Tracking Probe appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Senior Superintendent Atieno, who was then in charge of the prison’s health facilities and served as a clinical officer, told the Kibra Law Courts that Wairimu, a psychiatric patient, showed no signs of physical injuries during the medical examination he conducted after she was accused of swallowing stolen medication.

“I did not enter to apprehend anyone. I entered to take care of the patient,” Atieno testified, maintaining that he handed Wairimu over to prison officers after recommending she be placed in Cell One, where she remained until she later collapsed and died.

In her evidence, Atieno told the court that he had known Wairimu even before the events of February 28, 2020, because she had previously been incarcerated at the prison and was receiving treatment for mental illness.

“What made her special to us was because she was also a psychiatric patient within the facility,” he said.

He explained that Wairimu was taking psychiatric medication, including Artane, which he said was used to counter the side effects of other psychiatric drugs.

Although he was not the clinician on duty that Friday, Atieno said he had returned from a meeting at a sub-county health facility when the prison matron asked him to assist in clearing patients at the staff dispensary.

While there, a police constable informed him that Wairimu had allegedly entered the dispensary and stolen medication.

He said prison staff questioned the inmate, who admitted taking the drugs.

“They called Fatya and asked whether she had taken the drugs, and she said she had swallowed the drugs,” he testified.

According to Atieno, he proceeded to examine Wairimu, accompanied by Sergeant Habiba, explaining that female officers routinely accompany male clinicians during examinations of female inmates.

“When it comes to patient care, we are sensitive of religion,” he said.

The clinical officer told the court that he carried out a comprehensive physical examination to determine whether Wairimu had concealed medication on her body.

“We went and did a full body examination… She did not exhibit signs of experiencing side effects,” he testified.

He rejected claims that he assaulted the deceased using kicks or pipes.

“The only instrument to take care of the patient was a stethoscope. I entered with no pipe. In the health dispensary we do not have pipe.”

“I did not enter to apprehend anyone. I entered to take care of the patient,” he added.

Atieno described Wairimu as a physically weak inmate suffering from several medical conditions.

“Wairimu was very fragile. She was suffering from malnutrition and also asthmatic,” he said.

He also told the court that the inmate had previously exhibited aggressive and restless behaviour because of her psychiatric condition.

“Wairimu was very aggressive, restless. She didn’t want to stay at one place,” he testified.

The witness said he consulted Dr. Kisivuli regarding the alleged ingestion of medication and was advised that the likely effect would be dizziness.

“I called Dr. Kisivuli… the worst that could happen was that she would be dizzy and fall,” he said.

Following the assessment, Atieno recommended that Wairimu be moved to Cell One for observation.

“I made a recommendation for the patient to be taken to Cell One. I handed over to the duty officer when the patient was taken to Cell One,” he told the court.

He said he left the prison after completing his duties and returned to work on Monday, only to learn that Wairimu had died over the weekend.

“On Sunday, the nurse on duty was called that Fatya was not responding. The nurse attended to Fatya and she was referred to KNH and was unfortunately confirmed dead on arrival at the facility,” he testified.

Atieno’s evidence comes after another witness, inmate Samantha Muroiki, told the court that she allegedly witnessed Atieno and Sergeant Habiba assault Wairimu inside the prison dispensary.

The inquest has also heard evidence that Wairimu’s body had multiple injuries, including blunt force trauma, a swollen face, a swollen right eye, a mark near the right eyebrow and blood stains on her prison uniform, findings that have raised questions about the circumstances leading to her death while in custody.

The inquest seeks to establish how Wairimu sustained the injuries that led to her death and whether any prison officers should be held criminally responsible. The hearing continues before the Kibra Law Courts.

The post Lang’ata Prison Officer Denies Assaulting Mentally Ill Prisoner Before Her Death in 2020 appeared first on Insider Bits News.

The judgment, delivered yesterday in consolidated petitions led by Katiba Institute, split the three-judge bench.

Justices Fred Ogola and Stephen Githinji carried the majority decision, while Justice Jairus Ngaah broke away in a dissent that accused the President of recycling Cabinet Secretaries he had himself branded ineffective, and of pulling ODM legislators into government through the back door.

The majority decision found that of the Cabinet’s 25 members, only seven are women against 18 men, translating to roughly 28 percent female representation against the constitutionally required minimum of one-third, or nine members.

The judges further ruled that the Secretary to the Cabinet cannot be included in the computation because Article 152(1) of the Constitution defines the Cabinet as comprising only the President, Deputy President, Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretaries.

“The current Cabinet does not comply with the two-thirds gender principle,” the judges held, directing that “the President is directed to make appointments to ensure that the Cabinet is compliant with Article 27 of the Constitution within 120 days.”

The petitions arose from President Ruto’s decision to dissolve his Cabinet in July 2024 following nationwide youth-led protests, before reappointing several former Cabinet Secretaries and bringing a number of 16 ODM politicians and party officials into government without a formal coalition agreement into what State House described as a broad-based or national unity government

On the question of whether the President acted constitutionally by reappointing Cabinet Secretaries he had dismissed only weeks earlier, the majority held that his powers under Article 152(5)(b) to appoint and dismiss Cabinet Secretaries are broad and that dismissal alone does not automatically trigger integrity concerns under Chapter Six of the Constitution.

The bench similarly upheld the National Assembly’s vetting of the Cabinet, finding public participation requirements were met, and ruled that the appointment of the Attorney-General followed proper constitutional procedure, rejecting arguments that the office should have undergone the kind of competitive process used for the Director of Public Prosecutions.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Ngaah sharply questioned the President’s decision in returning the very Cabinet Secretaries he had branded ineffective to their old dockets.

“Why would the President renominate people that he found to be ineffective and dismissed them to the same positions?” Justice Ngaah posed, arguing that under Article 259(10) of the Constitution, a dismissed State officer can only be reappointed if still qualified for office.

He said the President’s own reasons for dismissing the Cabinet undermined any justification for their reappointment.

Justice Ngaah was equally unsparing on the ODM leaders appointment in government, tracing Kenya’s history of multiparty struggle before concluding that absorbing opposition legislators into Cabinet outside a formal coalition violated the law.

“Opposition MPs can only be co-opted into government through the framework of Sections 10 and 11 of the Political Parties Act,” he ruled, adding that “the only means that a ruling party can partner with the opposition is through the framework of a coalition.”

In some of the strongest remarks in the judgment, Justice Ngaah accused the President of failing to uphold the Constitution.

“When the President frustrates the Constitution, it is the duty of the Court to rise up and safeguard the Constitution!” he declared, citing Article 131(2)(a), which requires the Head of State to respect, uphold and safeguard the Constitution.

The petitions had targeted Ruto’s broad-based government push following the July 2024 youth-led protests that forced him to dissolve his entire Cabinet, and the subsequent inclusion of ODM figures in what State House branded a “national unity” arrangement.

While the majority ruling spares Ruto on the politically sensitive reappointment and opposition-absorption questions, the binding order compelling a Cabinet reshuffle within 120 days still hands the President a fresh headache, forcing him back to the negotiating table over portfolios just as his broad-based government arrangement appeared to be stabilizing.

The Attorney-General’s appointment, the only issue on which all three judges agreed, was unanimously upheld as constitutional.

The post Court Orders Ruto to Reshuffle Cabinet Within 120 Days Over Gender Rule Breach appeared first on Insider Bits News.

The development emerged on Tuesday June 30,2026 when the matter came up before Milimani Chief Magistrate Daisy Mutai for plea taking.

State counsel informed the court that the DPP had reviewed the case and approved the withdrawal of the charges against the two suspects, citing insufficient evidence while investigations into the matter continue.

“The DPP has reviewed the charges against the accused person and he has recommended the same be withdrawn under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) pending conclusion of ongoing investigations,” the prosecutor told the court.

The prosecution said the decision followed a review of the available evidence, adding that investigators were still pursuing further inquiries into the alleged examination malpractice.

The defence team, led by the former principal Kariuki’s counsel, whom the court heard is a long-serving public servant and also a former principal of Alliance High School, did not object to the withdrawal application from the DPP

After considering the application, Magistrate Mutai allowed the withdrawal under Section 87(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

“I will therefore allow the application by the DPP to have the charges withdrawn under Section 87(a) of the CPC,” Magistrate Mutai ruled.

The withdrawal under Section 87(a) means the prosecution is at liberty to re-arrest and charge the two afresh should fresh evidence emerge upon completion of investigations.

Kariuki and Kataiyo who were out on a personal bond of Sh 100,000 were first arraigned before the same court on May 26, 2026, but did not take plea after the prosecution requested more time, saying the DPP was reviewing the charges.

At the time, the prosecution told the court: “The DPP is reviewing the charges against the accused persons. We therefore request a period of 60 days in which we will update the court on the plea bargain agreement and whether to drop the charges or not.”

The prosecution had also indicated that it did not oppose the release of the suspects on bond pending the review.

In seeking their release, the defence submitted that the two had cooperated fully with investigators since the probe into the alleged examination irregularities commenced last year.

“The first accused (Kariuki) is a long-serving public servant and also a former principal of Alliance High School. Kasaine’s place of work is known. They have cooperated with investigations since last year when the probe started and have been appearing before DCI detectives as and when required. We will ensure they attend court whenever required,” the defence told the court.

According to the charge sheet, Kariuki and Kataiyo had been accused of unlawfully disclosing the contents of the 2025 KCSE English Paper One examination to candidates at Merishaw School in Isinya Sub-County, Kajiado County, on November 3, 2025.

The two also face a second count of conspiracy to commit a felony contrary to Section 393 of the Penal Code.

Prosecution alleged that between November 2 and 3, 2025, the pair conspired with others still at large to facilitate examination malpractice by interfering with the school’s CCTV surveillance system intentionally in aiding projections during the administration of the KCSE examinations.

The post DPP Drops Charges Against Former Merishaw School Principal, Hall Operator in 2025 KCSE Cheating Scandal. appeared first on Insider Bits News.

The suspects, identified as Faith Gathoni Njoroge and Tyson Marango Owuor, are attached to KRA’s Upper Hill offices in Nairobi.

According to EACC, the arrests followed a complaint from a taxpayer who alleged that the two officials demanded Sh3 million in exchange for influencing the resolution of a Capital Gains Tax assessment valued at Sh4.5 million.

Following the complaint, anti-graft investigators mounted an operation during which the two suspects were allegedly caught receiving Sh900,000, said to be part of the demanded bribe.

The cash was recovered as evidence and the suspects taken into custody.

EACC said the two are currently being processed at the Integrity Centre as investigations continue.

The Commission indicated that appropriate action will be taken under the Anti-Bribery Act, 2016, upon completion of the investigations.

The post EACC Arrests Two KRA Officers Over Alleged Sh900,000 Bribery Deal appeared first on Insider Bits News.

In the petition, Gachoka wants Patrick Kiage, Aggrey Muchelule, and Lydia Achode removed from offices  on grounds of gross misconduct in their handling of matters connected to the government’s proposed sale of a 15 per cent stake in Safaricom PLC.

Gachoka on Monday escorted his co-petitioner, Samuel Kahara Macharia, to Pensions House in Nairobi, where the petition was formally lodged at the JSC.

 Macharia is himself a petitioner in one of the consolidated High Court constitutional challenges against the share sale in which he named the National Treasury, the Privatization Commission, the Capital Markets Authority, the Attorney General, and Vodafone Group PLC as respondents.

The move marks a significant escalation in a months-long campaign by Gachoka and allied petitioners to block the divestiture of the government’s 15 per cent stake in Safaricom to a South African firm, a transaction expected to raise an estimated Sh204.3 billion.

The JSC petition is directly linked to Court of Appeal Civil Application No. E261 of 2026, in which the Cabinet Secretary for the National Treasury and Economic Planning and five others are seeking to overturn conservatory orders that blocked the national government from selling Safaricom shares.

Gachoka had already put his concerns in writing before lodging the JSC petition.

Just days ago, he and nine other petitioners wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal seeking clarification over what they termed as an unusual alteration and fast-tracking of the State application.

In a letter through advocate Lempaa Suiyanla of Mugeria, Lempaa and Kariuki Advocates, they raised concerns over the scheduling of the case.

The petitioners said parties were initially served with a hearing notice indicating that the matter would be heard on June 29, 2026.

However, they were later informed of a change fixing it for June 24, and were subsequently served with another amended notice advancing the hearing further to June 18 before a three-judge bench constituted by the President of the Court of Appeal

“It was therefore with considerable surprise that the parties subsequently received an amended hearing notice indicating that the application would instead be heard on June 18 at 9am,” the letter stated, with the petitioners arguing that the abrupt changes had created “genuine concern and apprehension” among the parties.

The petitioners also sought assurances that there exists no predetermined outcomes in Civil Application No. E261 of 2026 and that the matter shall be determined solely on the law and the merits presented by the parties.”

The High Court extended orders restraining the government from selling its 15 per cent shares in Safaricom to Vodacom South Africa, pending determination of three petitions, with a three-judge bench appointed by Chief Justice Martha Koome saying serious fundamental and constitutional issues had been raised.

The petitioners have argued that the proposed transaction would effectively reduce the State to a minority shareholder at 20 per cent in Safaricom, while granting the foreign-owned Vodacom Group controlling majority shares at 55 per cent.

They have further contended that the transaction implicates Kenya’s digital sovereignty and the financial flows underpinning M-Pesa.

Gachoka and other petitioners have also argued that the proposed transaction lacked transparency and was not subjected to independent evaluation, verification, or due diligence to ensure a lawful and competitive sale process, and that allowing the sale to proceed before the petitions are resolved could cause irreversible harm, including the loss of citizen control, dilution of sovereignty, and exposure of sensitive national and personal data.

The litigation has produced multiple satellite applications.

The High Court earlier dismissed applications by Gachoka and Prof. Fredrick Onyango Ogola seeking to bar Senior Counsel John Ohaga and advocate Andrew Mukite Musangi from representing parties in the proceedings, with a three-judge bench finding that the applicants had failed to prove any actual or perceived conflict of interest.

The JSC is the constitutional body mandated under Article 168 of the Constitution to receive and process complaints against judges, with removal proceedings triggered upon a finding of gross misconduct or incompetence.

The petition against Justices Kiage, Muchelule, and Achode has not yet been responded to by the named judges or the Court of Appeal.

The post Petition Filed at JSC to Remove 3 Appeal Judges Over Safaricom Sale Case appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Karua said immigration officials at Entebbe International Airport informed her that she had been flagged under a “red alert” before serving her with a notice declaring her a prohibited immigrant and persona non grata.

Documents issued by Uganda’s Directorate of Citizenship and Immigration Control show that Karua was denied entry under Uganda’s Citizenship and Immigration Control Act and ordered to be returned to Kenya on the next available flight.

The notice, dated June 22, 2026, identifies Karua as a Kenyan national and states that she was denied entry on grounds that she was considered “persona non grata.”

Addressing journalists upon arrival at JKIA, Karua displayed the immigration notice and questioned the basis of the decision, saying she had travelled to Uganda in her capacity as an advocate.

Her deportation comes amid heightened political tensions in Uganda and days after several developments involving the legal team representing veteran Ugandan opposition leader Kizza Besigye.

Karua has been part of Besigye’s defence team in ongoing court proceedings in Kampala.

Earlier on Monday, the Uganda Law Society confirmed that Karua had initially been cleared at Entebbe before immigration officials reversed the decision and barred her from entering the country. According to the society, she was subsequently ordered to return to Kenya.

Ugandan authorities had not publicly explained the alleged “red alert” by the time of publication.

However, the immigration notice seen by journalists cites only one reason for the denial of entry: “Persona non grata.”

The incident is likely to trigger diplomatic and legal questions, particularly given Karua’s role as counsel in ongoing cases involving Ugandan opposition figures.

In recent weeks, members of Besigye’s legal team have reported arrests, restrictions and legal challenges linked to the high-profile treason proceedings facing the opposition leader.

The Senior Counsel Bar of Kenya had earlier condemned Karua’s detention at Entebbe, describing it as a violation of her rights and interference with her professional duties as an advocate representing a client before Ugandan courts.

Further details are expected as Karua addresses the circumstances surrounding her deportation and possible next legal steps.

The post Martha Karua Returns to Kenya After Uganda Denies Her Entry, Declares Her Persona Non Grata appeared first on Insider Bits News.

The Bar through its Chairman, Senior Counsel Philip Murgor, says Karua was detained while in Uganda to attend the court mention and bail ruling of Hon. Erias Lukwago and has been denied access to her lawyers, defence team and family.

The Senior Counsel Bar said the detention and threatened deportation of Karua violated her rights and amounted to interference with her duties as an advocate representing a client before a Ugandan court.

The Bar has demanded that Karua be granted immediate access to her lawyers, family and the Kenyan diplomatic mission, while calling for any deportation process to be halted pending lawful determination.

The statement further urged the diplomatic missions of Kenya and the international community, alongside relevant United Nations Special Procedures, to urgently intervene in the matter.

The Senior Counsel Bar of Kenya demanded “the immediate and unconditional release of Hon. Martha Karua SC, and non-interference as she goes about her duties in Uganda and elsewhere as a duly accredited advocate to appear before a Ugandan Court to represent an accused person.”

The post Martha Karua Detention: Senior Counsel Bar Demands Release appeared first on Insider Bits News.

Government Spokesperson Isaac Mwaura made the clarification today, emphasizing continuity of economic activities and warning against any attempts to disrupt normalcy.

“June 25 will be a normal working day. There is no holiday declaration and all Kenyans have been asked to report to their working places. Politicians planning to take advantage of the Gen Z commemoration to cause chaos have been put on notice,” Mwaura stated.

He added that the government has put in enough mechanisms to protect businesses across the country and maintain law and order.

The clarification comes ahead of planned peaceful marches and vigils marking the second anniversary of the 2024 Gen Z-led protests against the Finance Bill, which turned deadly with dozens of deaths and injuries. Similar commemorations occurred in 2025.

Organizers, including families of victims, activists, and opposition leaders, have notified police of intentions to hold marches to Parliament to demand justice, compensation, and accountability for those killed.Siaya Governor James Orengo has called for the day to be observed as a public holiday.

“Mark your calendars: June 25th will be observed as a Public Holiday. No work, no school!” Orengo declared.

He invited Kenyans to participate: “We invite all Kenyans, mothers, fathers, siblings and friends to march to Parliament to demand justice and lay flowers where our children’s lives were cruelly taken.” Parallel vigils are planned across all 47 counties.

President William Ruto has reinforced the government’s position on normal operations.

“Children will go to school because it is their right, workers will go to work, and businesses will open their businesses so that we grow our economy,” Ruto said.

“We must never allow things that take Kenya backwards… We will defend the rights of everybody because we are a country that believes in order, we are a civilised country, an organised society that believes in the rule of law.”

He warned against mobilization for destruction of property or chaos.

The government has assured that peaceful assemblies will be facilitated under the Constitution while security agencies remain vigilant against violence or infiltration by those seeking political mileage ahead of the 2027 elections.

Police have set conditions for any processions to ensure they remain peaceful and have engaged organizers accordingly. A Sh2 billion compensation framework for protest victims has been announced in coordination with relevant bodies.

Businesses, schools, and public services are expected to operate normally on June 25.

The government has stressed its commitment to protecting lives, property, and economic stability while upholding citizens’ rights to peaceful expression and remembrance.

As tensions build, authorities have reiterated that any attempts to incite unrest or exploit the commemorations for chaos will not be tolerated. Kenyans are urged to prioritize peace, productivity, and the rule of law as the nation marks this sensitive date.

Further updates on security arrangements are expected in the coming days.

The post Government Confirms June 25 as Normal Working Day, No Public Holiday Declared appeared first on Insider Bits News.