Skip to main content

Deadly Force on Moi Avenue: Why the Police Shooting on 17 June Was Unlawful

On the afternoon of 17 June 2025, a shocking video emerged from Moi Avenue, Nairobi. In under 10 seconds, it appeared to capture a summary execution: a man is approached by police, questioned briefly, shoved, and then shot in the head. The officers walk away.

The footage spread swiftly across social media and news platforms, prompting outrage and grief. But beyond the emotion lies a stark legal truth: the shooting was not just excessive. It was unlawful.

This article outlines the legal standards governing police use of force in Kenya, and why, in this case, the conduct of the officers falls short—fatally so.

1. What the Video Shows

The video—recorded on Moi Avenue—unfolds in this sequence:

  • A man is seen selling face masks near a closed shopfront.

  • Protests or unrest are visible in the background.

  • Two uniformed police officers walk into frame, spot the man, and engage him.

  • After a one-to-two second verbal exchange, one officer shoves the man.

  • Almost immediately, the officer raises a firearm and shoots the man in the head.

  • The officers walk away, leaving the man motionless on the pavement.

There is no visible threat, weapon, or act of aggression by the victim. No warning is issued. No attempt at de-escalation or arrest is made. No medical assistance is rendered.

2. What the Law Requires

Kenyan law sets a high threshold for the use of deadly force. It must be:

  • Necessary: to protect life or prevent grievous harm;

  • Proportionate: to the threat posed;

  • Accountable: documented, reported, and reviewed.

These requirements are grounded in the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (Article 26 – right to life; Article 29 – freedom from inhuman treatment), the National Police Service Act (sections 61–64 and the Sixth Schedule), and the National Police Service (Use of Force and Firearms) Regulations 2014. International standards such as the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms also apply.

The law prohibits the use of lethal force except:

  • As a last resort;

  • When strictly unavoidable to protect human life;

  • And where no lesser means could reasonably suffice.

3. Why This Shooting Was Unlawful

(a) No Necessity

The victim poses no observable threat. He is standing still, unarmed, and non-aggressive. Nothing in the footage justifies the belief that anyone’s life was in danger.

(b) No Proportionality

Lethal force must match the level of resistance. In this case, there is no resistance at all. A shove is followed by a fatal gunshot. That is not proportional—it is extrajudicial.

(c) No Procedural Safeguards

Regulation 8 of the 2014 Use of Force Regulations mandates officers to issue a clear warning, provide time to comply, and avoid lethal options where possible. Regulation 10 further requires officers to render medical aid after force is used. These steps were ignored.

4. Legal Consequences

Criminal Liability

The shooter may be criminally liable for murder under section 203 of the Penal Code. Any officers complicit in the act or its cover-up may face charges for aiding, abetting, or failing to prevent the offence.

Constitutional Liability

The victim’s family has the right to bring a constitutional petition under Articles 22 and 23, seeking compensation and declarations for breach of fundamental rights.

State and Institutional Liability

The Attorney-General and the National Police Service may face vicarious liability for acts committed in the course of duty. The State may also be liable for failure to train, supervise, or discipline officers appropriately.

Mandatory Oversight by IPOA

The Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) is obligated to investigate any deaths resulting from police action. Failure to initiate such an inquiry may itself be challenged in court.

5. What Should Happen Now

Immediate steps must be taken to uphold the rule of law:

  1. IPOA should launch an independent investigation and identify all officers involved.

  2. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) should open a criminal file for possible murder charges.

  3. The National Police Service should suspend the officers pending inquiry.

  4. The Law Society of Kenya and civil society should offer legal support to the victim’s family and press for systemic reform.

  5. Any available CCTV, bodycam footage, and ballistic evidence must be secured.

6. Why This Matters

This is not just about one victim. It is about whether our society will tolerate state agents using deadly force without justification. It is about whether the right to life remains the cornerstone of our Constitution—or just an aspiration.

Law enforcement officers carry firearms not as tools of fear, but of last resort. When that standard is ignored, the law must respond—firmly, swiftly, and without exception.

Justice must not only be done. It must be seen to be done. And in this case, it must begin with the law doing what it is meant to do: protect the life and dignity of every Kenyan.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Last Crumb

The year was 2014, July to be precise. I had just concluded chairing the organizing committee of the first and only Toastmasters Speech Fair and Annual Dinner event, a precursor to TEACON. This event had been a bold experiment, expanding on the traditional Toastmasters Annual Dinner by incorporating speech contests into an afternoon and evening affair. It broke many norms and conventions and succeeded thanks to a number of Toastmasters who were ready to support change. One of those Toastmasters, SEMA Toastmasters President Anthony Wang'ondu, DTM soon afterwards sent me an intriguing email. Caren Wakoli, a member of his club, sought to introduce her Ethiopian friend who was seeking connections with Toastmasters across East Africa to form a district. Now, I have a friend in Ethiopia called Yosef Fantu, a member of the Toastmasters Club in Ethiopia. He wrote to me asking to be connected to Toastmasters Kenya so that the clubs in Kenya, Uganda, and Ethiopia can come together to establi...

A Young Entrepreneur Who Refused to Look for a Job

A read I thought would be of interest: LITTLE might be known about Imran Khosla, but not so for those who frequent courts or those in the information and communication technology industry. His is a story of a young entrepreneur who has refused to sit and just wait for jobs to come but has decided with the little cash he has to start off his own business that is now giving birth to new ventures beyond what he had imagined. Now in his late twenties, Imran set up his first electronic shop which also sold computer accessories in 2008. “After hearing lots of stories about graduates who have had tormenting search for jobs to no avail, obviously that was not the route I wished to take. I wanted to create my own job, and be my own boss, this was the inspiration that threw me into the world of entrepreneurship, and four years on, I tell you all is well and you cannot believe it I have over ten employees, and whose turnover is running into fortunes now,” Imran says with a cheer. His journ...

Sine qua non

Reader’s discretion: Strong Language and Violence Paxa  Rainne slams her open palm on the car horn frustrated. Another matatu has overlapped and cut her off just as she was to join the highway. Driving into town from Ngara is still a nightmare, despite a spanking new superhighway. Rainne wonders if her naivety in being polite to other road users is a magnet for this menace. Rainne has been in traffic now for over an hour and has hardly moved ten metres, giving way to dozens of other vehicles but not getting any reciprocation. She wriggles her bare toes, driving shoeless in these conditions is more comfortable.  She takes comfort in that small luxury. The lotion she applied on her feet earlier is keeping them nice and cool. The conductor of the matatu swings wildly from the door as it narrowly misses Rainne’s front bumper. “Siste, huku ni Nairobi, jikakamue”! She glares at him and he returns a lewd look, seemingly excited at the fact that he’s unnerved ...