Want to collaborate or support access to justice?
Contact UsWant to collaborate or support access to justice?
Contact Us
Read this story on Esheria.
IntroductionKenya’s commitment to accountable policing took legal shape in 2011 following the enactment of the Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act and was further enshrined in Article 244 of the 2010 Constitution. These provisions grant IPOA the authority to investigate any death or serious injury linked to police action or inaction, to inspect detention facilities and public order operations, to interview officers and detainees, to gather and preserve forensic evidence, and to recommend prosecutions to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The 2022 General Operations Regulations bolster these powers by mandating that every death in custody be treated as a crime scene, with preliminary findings submitted within seven days and a comprehensive report delivered within ninety days. Despite this robust statutory framework, translating legal authority into meaningful oversight has proven challenging in practice.
From Arrest to Autopsy: The Ojwang CaseOn June 6 2025 teacher and social commentator Albert Ojwang was arrested on allegations of defaming a senior police officer. He was transported more than four hundred kilometers to Nairobi’s Central Police Station and placed in a lock up cell without access to legal counsel or regular updates to his family. Two days later he was admitted to a hospital in critical condition. The official account claimed he had slipped and fallen. However an independent autopsy revealed deep cranial fractures and ligature marks around his neck injuries unmistakably consistent with a violent assault. In response, IPOA invoked its statutory mandate under Section 7(1)(a) of the Act to secure the scene, seize relevant evidence, and obtain police logs and witness statements. Collecting this evidence was a necessary first step, yet it did not guarantee that those responsible would be held to account.
Challenges in Securing AccountabilityIPOA’s investigative powers frequently falter once cases transition from administrative inquiry into the criminal justice system. While Section 7(1)(a)(v) and (vii) of the IPOA Act empowers the Authority to summon and compel the attendance of officers and witnesses during investigations, the Act provides no mechanism to enforce their appearance during trial. As a result, courts routinely grant adjournments due to the absence of the accused or key witnesses, even when officers have been duly subpoenaed. This practice undermines the authority of IPOA’s findings and burdens prosecutors who must repeatedly reschedule hearings.
Crucial eyewitnesses often face intimidation by law enforcement or inducements to retract statements. Ordinary citizens may receive threats to their safety or cryptic warnings that their lives will be made difficult if they testify. Some witnesses are offered financial or professional incentives to undermine their own testimony. When key witnesses retract or disappear the prosecution’s narrative becomes fragmented forcing judges to rely solely on forensic evidence which, while informative, cannot capture the full context of events or identify those who ordered or executed the abuse.
Forensic analysis itself can become a bottleneck. Toxicology screenings and ballistics reports frequently take months to complete due to limited laboratory capacity and backlogs. Specimens can degrade or chain of custody can be compromised during prolonged storage. By the time a report is available eyewitness memories have faded and public attention has moved on. With neither compelling real time testimony nor fresh support from civil society the momentum behind a case dissipates.
A further obstacle is the systemic reluctance of police officers to cooperate. Some officers refuse to comply with IPOA summons citing vague departmental directives. Others simply ignore subpoenas confident that there will be no practical consequence. IPOA can refer noncompliance to the Director of Public Prosecutions yet this is a circumscribed remedy that often does not translate into immediate accountability.
Resource constraints compound these issues. IPOA’s annual budget remains modest relative to the scale of its mandate. Investigators operate with aging vehicles which hamper rapid deployment to remote scenes. Staffing levels are insufficient to maintain round the clock response teams for all regions. Lacking its own forensic laboratory IPOA must rely on police or government labs which may prioritise other cases. Protective arrangements for vulnerable witnesses are limited both in scope and duration. In effect witnesses are left to navigate hostile environments on their own once an investigation leaks into the public domain.
The cumulative effect of these challenges is stark. Between July 2023 and June 2024 IPOA opened nearly four hundred new inspections and carried out two hundred forty five follow up visits yet by mid 2024 only four convictions had been secured from more than twelve hundred cases sent to court. This conversion rate of under three percent reveals a widening gap between investigation and justice that erodes public confidence and emboldens perpetrators to act with impunity.
Statutory Gaps and Reform ProposalsAnalysts and legal experts have pinpointed several critical gaps in the current framework that if addressed could strengthen IPOA’s ability to secure accountability. First, IPOA lacks direct enforcement powers in the courtroom. Although it can compel attendance during investigation stages it has no recourse when officers evade subpoenas at trial. An amendment to the Act to grant IPOA authority to apply contempt of court provisions directly would ensure that officers cannot flout subpoenas with impunity.
Second, witness protection within IPOA investigations remains ad hoc and limited. While Section 7(1)(a)(viii) of the IPOA Act allows for the non-disclosure of witness identities where necessary, the Authority lacks a dedicated, in-house witness protection scheme. Embedding a formal mandate within IPOA’s remit including powers to coordinate safe houses, relocation, and anonymity protocols would reduce the risk of intimidation and preserve the integrity of witness testimony.
Third, digital evidence custody is inadequately addressed. The 2022 Regulations require crime scene preservation but custody of body camera footage and other digital records remains with subject police units. Legislation must vest unedited video data in IPOA to prevent tampering or selective deletion. By storing raw footage in a secure independent archive IPOA could control access, narrow the potential for manipulation and streamline evidence disclosure to prosecutors and defence counsel alike.
Fourth, delays in the court system undermine the imperative of timely justice. Establishing specialized custodial courts staffed by judges trained in human rights law and supported by dedicated prosecutors would accelerate in custody death trials. Such courts could operate under strict timelines for filing charges sentencing and appeals ensuring that cases are resolved within a year of referral. Fast track custodial courts in other jurisdictions have shown that prioritizing these cases reduces backlog and sends a strong deterrent message.
Fifth, budgetary autonomy for IPOA remains elusive. Currently IPOA’s funding is subject to annual appropriation by the National Treasury creating a potential choke point if governments seek to curtail investigations. Ring fencing IPOA’s budget through parliamentary approval of multi year funding allocations would safeguard its operations from political interference and allow for strategic planning of long term forensic capacity expansion.
Finally public transparency and accountability reporting must be improved. While IPOA publishes annual reports these documents are often dense and fail to highlight case by case outcomes. Mandating quarterly public updates on progress of custodial death cases with clear indicators for investigation stages referrals to the DPP court proceedings and verdicts would engage civil society and maintain pressure on all actors to uphold deadlines and procedural standards.
ConclusionThe tragic death of Albert Ojwang is not an isolated incident but symptomatic of deeper systemic weaknesses in Kenya’s approach to police accountability. Despite having one of the most progressive oversight frameworks on the continent statutory authority alone has not been enough to ensure that deaths in custody are met with prompt effective investigations and meaningful prosecutions.
The task before Kenya is twofold. First to close the statutory gaps that allow officers and institutions to evade accountability and second to bolster IPOA’s operational capacity through predictable funding and enhanced forensic resources. Only by empowering IPOA to enforce subpoenas secure witness protection manage digital evidence independently and fast track critical cases can the promise of the 2010 Constitution be realized.
For victims families and all Kenyans the stakes could not be higher. Accountability in policing is not merely a legal formality but the bedrock of a society where citizens can exercise their rights free from fear. Strengthening IPOA is indispensable to transforming the oversight body from a symbol of good intentions into a force with real teeth. In doing so, Kenya will not only honor the memory of Albert Ojwang but also reaffirm its commitment to justice transparency and the rule of law.
