Former Chief Justice David Maraga has launched an attack on Director of Public Prosecutions Renson Ingonga over terrorism charges filed against 70 young Kenyans who participated in anti-government demonstrations.
In a statement released on Thursday, September 11, Maraga appeared at Kahawa Law Courts to defend what he termed ‘the conscience of our nation’, demanding that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) immediately drop what he called ‘sham terrorism charges’ against peaceful protesters.
“Today, once more, I was compelled to appear at the Kahawa Law Courts because the future of Kenya is on trial,” Maraga stated. “I attended Court with other Advocates for the youth, to defend our Constitution. We stand with these young people because they are not terrorists. They are the conscience of our nation.”
The former Chief Justice expressed deep concern about the impact these charges have had on the lives of the accused youth.
“The lives of these 70 youth have been turned into hell as they cannot do anything meaningful with terrorism charges on their necks,” he stated. “Those who have not been able to meet the bond terms are languishing in cells since the Saba Saba commemoration. This is unacceptable.”
Maraga directly challenged President William Ruto’s administration, demanding an end to what he characterized as judicial abuse.
“Ruto’s regime must stop abusing the Courts and the anti-terrorism laws,” he said, “the ODPP drops these sham terrorism charges against peaceful protesters.”
This latest statement continues Maraga’s sustained campaign in defense of young protesters who have faced what critics describe as disproportionate legal consequences for exercising their constitutional rights.
Previously, Maraga has accused the current administration of deliberately using the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Anti-Terrorism Police Unit to intimidate and silence dissenting voices.
The legal veteran has repeatedly appeared in court alongside other advocates, urging the Judiciary to maintain its independence and uphold constitutional protections.
“We shall not relent in protecting the right to peaceful assembly as guaranteed by the Constitution,” Maraga had promised in July.
On July 24, DPP Ingonga mounted a defense of his office’s controversial prosecutorial decisions, maintaining that the terrorism charges stem from evidence-based assessments rather than political pressure.
Ingonga argued that deliberate acts of destruction targeting government installations constitute terrorism under Kenyan law.
“The Decision to Charge Guidelines are the most important document for the ODPP and for any prosecutor,” Ingonga stated. “We want prosecution decisions made across different regions to be uniform. These guidelines emphasize evidence-based prosecution to ensure we charge the right person, in line with people-centered justice. We must resist pressure, fear, or favour.”
The terrorism charges have created significant hardship for dozens of young Kenyans, many of whom have been unable to meet the substantial bond requirements set by courts.
Bond amounts have varied considerably across related cases, ranging from a cash bail of Sh50,000 to bonds as high as Sh200,000.
