President Defends Controversial Directive

NAIROBI – President William Ruto on Sunday, November 9, 2025, stated he has “no regrets” over his directive to police to shoot violent protesters in the leg, remarks that have intensified an already volatile national conversation about policing, human rights, and the limits of executive power in Kenya. Speaking during a televised interview with Al Jazeera, the President defended his initial statement, first made in July 2025, arguing it was a necessary measure to protect lives and property amidst widespread demonstrations.

“I don’t regret those comments at all, because the law allows the police to use force when other people’s lives are in danger,” President Ruto said during the interview on Sunday. He maintained that his administration was not using the police to suppress dissent and insisted on the operational independence of the National Police Service (NPS). “The police are independent, and there is nowhere in the law where I have the power to direct the police,” he clarified, framing his comments as an expression of his stance on public safety rather than a direct command.

Origins of the Controversial Order

The President’s original “shoot-the-leg” comment was made on Wednesday, July 9, 2025, during an inspection of a police housing project in Kilimani, Nairobi. In the wake of deadly anti-government protests that saw widespread vandalism, the President stated: “Anyone who burns down someone else’s business and property, let them be shot in the leg and go to the hospital as they head to court. Yes, let them not kill, but shoot and break the legs.” At the time, he branded those attacking police and destroying property as “terrorists” and declared that such actions amounted to a “declaration of war” on the state.

The directive followed a period of intense civil unrest. Protests in June and July 2025, largely led by youth, resulted in significant casualties. A July 2025 report by the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) documented that at least 65 people died during these protests, with 41 succumbing to police bullets. The report also highlighted the underreporting of these deaths by the NPS, fueling accusations of a cover-up. Human rights organizations provided similar figures, with Amnesty International Kenya reporting 60 fatalities and hundreds of injuries due to excessive police force.

Legal and Constitutional Scrutiny

The President’s remarks have drawn sharp criticism from legal experts and human rights bodies, who argue they contravene Kenyan law. The Constitution of Kenya 2010, under Article 245, establishes that the Inspector-General of Police exercises independent command over the NPS. The law explicitly states that no person may give a direction to the Inspector-General regarding the investigation of any offence or the enforcement of the law against any person. Any policy direction from the responsible Cabinet Secretary must be in writing.

Furthermore, the National Police Service Act of 2011 and its Sixth Schedule strictly regulate the use of force, mandating that officers must first attempt non-violent means. Force, when used, must be proportional to the objective and necessary in the circumstances. Firearms are permitted only to confront an imminent threat of death or serious injury.

The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) and Amnesty International Kenya have condemned the President’s directive as “unlawful” and dangerously provocative. Irungu Houghton, Director of Amnesty International Kenya, warned in July that “it is extremely dangerous for politicians to instruct police officers… on how to conduct policing during protests,” stating such orders could escalate violence.

A Divided Political Landscape

The “shoot-the-leg” order has exposed deep divisions within Kenya’s political class. Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua vehemently condemned the directive, stating his intention to report the President to the International Criminal Court. Wiper Party leader Kalonzo Musyoka described the remarks as dangerous to both citizens and the Constitution.

Conversely, some government allies have defended the President’s hardline stance. Belgut MP Nelson Koech, who chairs the Defence, Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committee, went further, stating the President’s order was too lenient and that violent protesters should be shot and killed. Soy MP David Kiplagat also justified the directive, arguing that the President meant that “anarchy will not be tolerated” and that criminals should be disabled and arrested.

This controversy unfolds against a backdrop of a long and troubled history of extrajudicial killings and police brutality in Kenya, documented extensively by both local and international human rights organizations. Reports from IPOA and the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) have consistently pointed to a culture of impunity within the security forces. As the nation grapples with the implications of the President’s unapologetic stance, questions surrounding accountability, the rule of law, and the state’s responsibility to protect its citizens remain at the forefront of public discourse.