A Commentary on the High Court Decision in Kenya Human Rights Commission & Others v. Japhet Koome Nchebere [2024] KEHC 16607 (KLR)

A Commentary on the High Court Decision in Kenya Human Rights Commission & Others v. Japhet Koome Nchebere [2024] KEHC 16607 (KLR)

Read this story on Esheria.

A Commentary on the High Court Decision in Kenya Human Rights Commission & Others v. Japhet Koome Nchebere [2024] KEHC 16607 (KLR)

Introduction

The High Court decision in Kenya Human Rights Commission & Others v. Japhet Koome Nchebere (2024) represents a watershed moment in Kenya’s constitutional and administrative law landscape delivered by the ldistinguished Judge Ngaa Jairus. This judicial review application addressed the actions of the former Inspector General of Police, Japhet Koome Nchebere,who resigned in the wake of Gen Z protests in June. It was the hilding of the courts that directives he issued were deemed unconstitutional assault on fundamental rights. Central to the case was the purported suspension of Articles 36, 37, and 41 of the Constitution—rights related to freedom of association, assembly, and labour relations. The judgment provides critical insights into constitutional protection, the limits of executive power, and the evolving jurisprudence on administrative accountability.

Context of the Case

The dispute arose after the Inspector General’s decision to suspend rights guaranteed under the Constitution, particularly targeting the Kenya Medical Practitioners, Pharmacists, and Dentists Union (KMPDU). The union had organized peaceful strikes and pickets to highlight grievances in the healthcare sector. On April 14, 2024, the respondent issued a directive branding these demonstrations a threat to public safety, ordering police commanders to "deal firmly and decisively" with the protesters. This culminated in the violent dispersal of peaceful demonstrators, including the use of tear gas, which gravely injured Dr. Davji Atela, the Secretary General of KMPDU.

At its core, the case challenged the legality of an administrative action that sought to curtail fundamental freedoms in the guise of maintaining public order. By bringing the matter before the court, the applicants sought to underscore the importance of the rule of law and ensure accountability for breaches of constitutional norms. The judgment thus provides a critical lens for evaluating the balance between state authority and individual rights. The petitioners, led by Kenya Human Rights Commission and eight other parties including LSK argued that the Inspector General’s actions were unconstitutional, illegal, and disproportionate. They sought orders prohibiting the enforcement of the directive, quashing it through certiorari, and holding the respondent personally liable under the doctrine of command responsibility. The decision marked a pivotal moment in asserting the supremacy of constitutional safeguards over administrative excesses.

Constitutional and Statutory Framework

At the heart of the judgment are Articles 36, 37, and 41 of the Constitution, which safeguard the rights to association, peaceful assembly, and fair labour practices. These rights are foundational to Kenya’s democracy, as they enable citizens to organize, advocate for their interests, and express their grievances without fear of repression. The court’s emphasis on these rights highlighted their inalienable nature and the requirement for any limitations to be justified under strict constitutional parameters.

The court underscored that limitations on rights must adhere to Article 24 of the Constitution, which stipulates that such restrictions must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate in an open and democratic society. The respondent’s actions—purporting to suspend constitutional provisions—were found to lack legal foundation, violating the principles of legality and proportionality. By invoking public safety as justification, the respondent failed to demonstrate the necessity and reasonableness of the limitations imposed.

Further, the judgment emphasized the obligations of the National Police Service under Article 244(c), which mandates compliance with constitutional standards of human rights. The National Police Service Act reinforces these obligations, particularly Section 49(4), which requires officers to exercise their powers lawfully and reasonably. The court’s interpretation of these provisions reinforced the notion that public officers are bound by a duty to facilitate, not hinder, the enjoyment of constitutional rights.

This framework aligns Kenya’s legal system with international human rights norms. The court’s reference to instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights underscored Kenya’s commitment to upholding global standards. By invalidating the Inspector General’s directive, the court reaffirmed the supremacy of constitutional protections and the need for accountability in administrative actions.

The Doctrine of Legality

The court’s analysis was steeped in the doctrine of legality—the principle that public officials must act within the scope of their legally conferred authority. This doctrine is central to ensuring that state power is exercised responsibly and within defined limits. The Inspector General’s directive to suspend constitutional rights was found to exceed his constitutional and statutory mandate. By unilaterally purporting to curtail fundamental freedoms, the respondent acted ultra vires, undermining the rule of law.

In affirming the doctrine of legality, the court relied on comparative jurisprudence from jurisdictions such as South Africa and Canada. Cases like Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA v. President of the Republic of South Africa and Roncarelli v. Duplessis illustrated the principle that public power must be exercised within the bounds of law. Arbitrary decisions, lacking a clear legal basis, are invalid and erode public trust in governance.

The judgment further elaborated on the need for precision and clarity in the exercise of administrative powers. It held that the Inspector General’s directive, which lacked statutory backing and procedural safeguards, was an archetype of capricious governance. This finding underscored the necessity for public officials to align their actions with the principles of legality, transparency, and accountability. By invalidating the directive, the court reinforced the centrality of the rule of law in maintaining democratic governance.

The doctrine of legality also extends to ensuring that public power is exercised equitably. The court’s condemnation of selective enforcement by the respondent highlighted the dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory practices. Such actions not only violate constitutional guarantees of equality but also undermine the legitimacy of state institutions. The judgment thus serves as a vital reminder of the constraints on executive authority and the need for impartiality in the exercise of public power.

Proportionality and Necessity

A cornerstone of the judgment was the principle of proportionality. This legal standard requires that limitations on constitutional rights be balanced against the legitimate objectives they seek to achieve. The court applied the proportionality test outlined in R v. Oakes (Canada), which examines whether the means employed are rationally connected to the objective, minimally impair rights, and strike a fair balance between societal interests and individual freedoms.

The court found that the respondent’s directive failed all elements of this test. The purported aim of ensuring public safety could have been achieved through less restrictive measures. For instance, the police could have facilitated peaceful demonstrations while addressing specific disruptions. Instead, the directive’s sweeping nature—suspending the rights to association, assembly, and labour relations—was disproportionate and unjustifiable. The use of excessive force during the dispersal of peaceful demonstrators further underscored the lack of necessity and reasonableness in the respondent’s approach.

The principle of proportionality also demands a consideration of alternatives. In this case, the respondent’s failure to explore less intrusive measures revealed a disregard for constitutional values. The court emphasized that constitutional rights are not mere privileges but fundamental guarantees that can only be limited under stringent conditions. By failing to meet these conditions, the respondent’s actions amounted to an abuse of power. This aspect of the judgment has far-reaching implications for administrative law in Kenya. It establishes a robust standard for assessing the validity of actions that infringe on fundamental rights. The emphasis on proportionality ensures that state authority is exercised with due regard for individual freedoms, fostering a culture of accountability and respect for the rule of law. The judgment thus sets a critical precedent for safeguarding constitutional rights against unwarranted encroachments.

Command Responsibility and Accountability

The court also grappled with the doctrine of command responsibility, holding the respondent accountable for the actions of officers under his command. This doctrine, rooted in both domestic and international law, establishes the liability of superiors for crimes or violations committed by their subordinates. The court’s reliance on precedents from international tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, reinforced the principle that leaders bear ultimate responsibility for maintaining discipline and legality within their ranks.In this case, the respondent’s failure to prevent or punish the unlawful use of force against peaceful demonstrators rendered him personally culpable. The court found that the respondent had effective control over his subordinates and that his directives directly contributed to the violations. By holding the respondent liable, the judgment underscored the importance of accountability in governance, particularly in the security sector.

The doctrine of command responsibility also serves as a deterrent against abuses of power. By imposing personal liability on the respondent, the court sent a strong message that public officials cannot escape scrutiny for their actions. This aspect of the judgment aligns with Kenya’s broader efforts to promote transparency and uphold the rule of law. It also highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring that state power is exercised responsibly and in accordance with constitutional principles. The judgment’s emphasis on accountability resonates beyond the specifics of the case. It reinforces the principle that no one is above the law, regardless of their position or authority. This finding is particularly significant in the context of Kenya’s democratic governance, where the separation of powers and the protection of rights are paramount. By holding the respondent to account, the court affirmed its commitment to justice and the rule of law.

Conclusion

The High Court decision in Kenya Human Rights Commission & Others v. Japhet Koome Nchebere underscores the judiciary's critical role in safeguarding constitutional rights and upholding the rule of law. By invalidating the former Inspector General’s unconstitutional directive, the court reaffirmed the inalienable nature of freedoms enshrined in Articles 36, 37, and 41 of the Constitution. The judgment serves as a landmark precedent in delineating the boundaries of executive authority, emphasizing the principles of legality, proportionality, and accountability. It highlights the judiciary's unwavering stance against arbitrary governance and its commitment to ensuring that public power is exercised responsibly, equitably, and within constitutional limits. Ultimately, this decision fortifies the foundation of Kenya's democracy and reasserts the supremacy of constitutional protections over administrative overreach.