Breaking: Mutua Defends Ruto’s Protest Victim Compensation Framework Amid Opposition Criticism

Nairobi, Kenya – In a heated exchange, President Ruto’s Senior Advisor on Constitutional Affairs and Human Rights, Prof. Makau Mutua, has staunchly defended the government’s newly announced compensation framework for victims of protests and riots. He accused Kalonzo Musyoka and Eugene Wamalwa of politicizing a “noble effort” and urged them to propose constructive solutions — not defeat the process. 

What’s the Framework?

• The initiative, announced by President William Ruto on August 8, 2025, establishes a 120-day window to implement a compensation mechanism for victims of public protests and riots from January 1, 2017, to July 31, 2025. 

• It is to be coordinated by a multi-agency team drawn from the Executive Office of the President, Office of the Attorney General, National Treasury, Ministry of Interior and National Administration, and other state agencies. 

Opposition Pushback

• On August 9, Kalonzo Musyoka and Eugene Wamalwa challenged the framework’s constitutionality. They expressed distrust in the Executive handling the process and proposed instead that it be overseen by the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR). 

• Kalonzo notably stated: “A wolf cannot decide the matters of a cow or crow.” 

Mutua’s Response

• Prof. Mutua hit back swiftly, calling their stance “cheap and toxic politics”, and suggesting they “join the noble effort” or offer a better counter‑proposal. 

• He invoked the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) as a successful government‑led transitional justice model. 

• In an earlier statement on August 8, Mutua had accepted his role as Principal Coordinator of the framework, calling the move “bold, unprecedented, and transformational for Kenya’s human‑rights culture.” 

Wider Debate

• Kivutha Kibwana, former Makueni governor, also questioned the legal basis of the proclamation, pointing out that South Africa’s TRC was enabled via an act of Parliament — raising questions about Kenya’s equivalent legal grounding. 

• Human‑rights organizations and youth groups, while welcoming the intent, have reiterated the need for transparency, independent oversight, and broader public consultations to build credibility in the process. 

Summary Perspective