President William Ruto has directed police officers to shoot anyone caught looting or vandalizing property during protests—specifically “in the leg.” The remarks have sparked national and international concern over state-sanctioned violence and the escalating crackdown on demonstrators.
Highlights:
- President Ruto told police to shoot looters “in the leg” to deter vandalism.
- The directive follows deadly protests that left at least 31 dead.
- Rights groups and legal experts warn the order violates the Constitution.
- Critics say the move risks worsening public anger and police brutality.
- The directive comes amid ongoing youth-led demonstrations across Kenya.
Main Story:
President William Ruto has taken a hardline stance in response to widespread protests, authorizing police to shoot individuals caught looting or vandalizing property during demonstrations. Speaking at a public event, Ruto stated clearly: “Shoot them in the leg. Don’t let them destroy property.”
The statement follows a violent period of protests, particularly the Saba Saba demonstrations, during which 31 people were confirmed dead, over 100 injured, and hundreds more arrested. The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) has condemned what it called a “disproportionate use of force” by security officers.
The Law Society of Kenya and multiple human rights organizations have raised red flags over the president’s directive, calling it unconstitutional and dangerous. Legal experts argue that shooting to maim, even in cases of alleged looting, violates the principle of proportional force and the right to life and dignity.
The directive has intensified backlash from civil society and protest organizers. Many fear the statement could embolden officers to escalate violent crackdowns without legal consequence. With demonstrations expected to continue, the order risks fueling more unrest rather than containing it.
Defending the move, Interior CS Kipchumba Murkomen said the government has intelligence linking some acts of looting to organized political sabotage. He insisted that strong action was necessary to protect businesses and public property from “criminal elements hiding behind protests.”
As the streets stay tense and the wounds of protest deepen, the nation is left asking—can law and order be restored without sacrificing the very rights it’s meant to protect?
