President William Ruto’s recent directive instructing police officers to “shoot in the leg” individuals found looting or vandalizing during protests has triggered sharp criticism from legal experts, medical professionals, and human rights advocates.
While the president’s intent appears to be curbing the destruction of property during demonstrations, the order has raised serious questions over its legality, ethical implications, and alignment with Kenya’s Constitution and policing standards.
From a medical perspective, the directive is potentially fatal. The leg contains critical blood vessels, most notably the femoral artery.
A gunshot wound in this area can lead to catastrophic blood loss, causing death within minutes if emergency care is not administered promptly. Additionally, survivors face high risks of nerve damage, shattered bones, infection, and lifelong disability.
Legal scholars argue that the order contradicts several provisions of the 2010 Constitution, including Article 26, which guarantees the right to life, and Article 29(c), which protects individuals from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Article 238 also obligates state security organs to uphold human rights and the rule of law in the pursuit of national security.
The National Police Service Act restricts the use of force to situations of absolute necessity and insists that force be proportional.
Lethal force is only justified where there is an immediate threat to life. Human rights lawyers contend that shooting a suspect in the leg, especially one fleeing or looting, does not meet the legal threshold and may amount to extrajudicial punishment.
Governance experts warn that normalizing such actions risks undermining public trust in law enforcement and could fuel further unrest. Civil society organizations are urging the government to rethink its approach, prioritizing non-lethal crowd control, officer retraining, and the reinforcement of constitutional safeguards.
The impact of such policing tactics is already being felt. Rex Kanyike Masai, a 29-year-old protester, was shot in the thigh during the Finance Bill protests in Nairobi and later succumbed to his injuries. Another victim, John Mwangi, sustained a leg wound during similar protests and died after eight months of medical complications.
In Kiambu, several protesters were victims of police officers shooting in the air, with bullets landing in people’s homes and ending a 12-year-old girl’s life as she was watching TV.
In June 17, a mask vendor, Boniface Kariuki, was shot at close range by police officers, despite him being of no threat. In Kitengela, a boda boda rider who had surrendered in front of the officers was gunned down by a bullet to the chest fired by anti-riot officers.
The blatant shelving of the rule of law in police operations has put Kenya on the pedestal of human rights violations, with rights defenders world-over condemning the actions.
Two senior government officials are facing mounting criticism over recent statements appearing to justify the use of lethal force against protesters, raising alarm among human rights organisations and legal experts.
Moses Kuria, the outgoing Senior Economic Advisor to the President, stirred controversy with remarks suggesting it was acceptable to “kill to protect” property.
Kuria’s comments were widely condemned as irresponsible and inflammatory, particularly given the rising death toll from recent anti-government protests. Civil society groups argue that such statements from senior advisors undermine constitutional protections, encourage extrajudicial violence, and embolden security officers to use disproportionate force.
Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen added fuel to the fire by declaring that any individual attempting to attack a police station should be “shot on sight.”
The remarks, made during a security briefing, sparked intense debate. Legal experts say the statement appears to bypass due process and signals a dangerous precedent in how law enforcement is being directed to handle unrest.
The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR), Amnesty International, and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ-Kenya) have since called for immediate retraction of the statements and demanded adherence to the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life (Article 26) and freedom from arbitrary punishment (Article 50 and 29).
As outrage grows, observers say the President’s remarks—though perhaps made in the heat of the moment—could have long-term implications for Kenya’s policing culture, protest rights, and the integrity of state accountability.
