This week marks one year since the attack on the Kenya Human Rights Commission.
On July 6, 2025, a press conference convened by mothers demanding an end to abductions, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings was violently disrupted when the armed group stormed the office.
Journalists, human rights defenders and grieving families fled as the premise was vandalised.
On the eve of this attack, KHRC's Senior Legal Officer, Martin Mavenjina, was denied entry into Kenya after an official tour of South Africa. He was forcibly returned to Uganda despite holding valid travel documents. This action was unlawful.
One year later, there has been no accountability. No one has been held responsible for the attack, Mavenjina’s return remains unresolved and no credible public explanation has been offered for either incident.
In recent years, human rights organisations have documented repeated disruptions of peaceful assemblies, attacks on civic meetings, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings and excessive force against demonstrators, showing a gradual shrinking of civic space.
This trend was evident on June 12, 2026, when armed groups disrupted a post-budget dialogue at All Saints Cathedral; on June 25, 2025, when the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights reported that at least 19 people were killed by the police during the Gen Z anniversary demonstrations; and again, on July 3, 2026, when protests over demolitions in Pangani paralysed Thika Road.
These incidents reflect growing public frustration over unresolved grievances and a greater use of force in response to civic action.
The constitution provides the standard against which these events must be judged. Articles 33, 36 and 37 guarantee freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, while Article 29 protects every person from arbitrary treatment and violence.
These rights enable Kenyans to organise, speak and hold public institutions to account without fear, but their value lies in enforcement. When violations go uninvestigated and those responsible are not held accountable, public confidence in the rule of law erodes and weakens the democratic culture the constitution was meant to protect.
This is not the first time Kenya has faced such a test. During the struggle for multiparty democracy in the early 1990s, political violence, intimidation and the suppression of dissent underscored the need for stronger constitutional safeguards. The 2010 constitution reflected a national commitment to resolving political differences through the rule of law rather than coercion.
That history is a reminder that democratic decline rarely happens through a single dramatic event, but unfolds gradually when unacceptable conduct is tolerated, accountability weakens and institutions fail to act.
As Kenya moves closer to the 2027 General Election, the challenge extends beyond organising a credible vote to preserving the civic space that enables citizens to speak freely, assemble peacefully and participate without fear throughout the electoral process.
Responding to the unresolved questions raised by the events of July 5 and 6 last year, and to the broader pattern that has emerged since, would reaffirm Kenya's commitment to accountability, the rule of law and constitutional democracy, while strengthening public confidence in the institutions responsible for safeguarding these principles.
As John Locke warned, “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins.” Every constitutional democracy must ensure that the law remains a shield for liberty, not a tool for its erosion.
Programme Manager for Political Accountability at the Kenya Human Rights Commission
