This policy assessment examines the proposed 2024 amendment to the Public Order Act (Cap. 56), sponsored by Mbeere North MP Hon. Ruku Geoffrey Kiringa and submitted to Parliament on May 15, 2024. The review evaluates the Bill’s coherence, proportionality, and alignment with constitutional, regional, and international human rights standards.
The Bill, dated April 25, 2024, appears largely punitive and reactive rather than reform-oriented. From a policy perspective, legislative reform in public order management should be evidence-based, forward-looking, and harmonized with global, regional, and domestic legal standards.
At the international level, Articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantee freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly. Regionally, Articles 9 and 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) protect similar rights. Nationally, Article 37 of the Constitution of Kenya safeguards the right to assemble, demonstrate, picket, and present petitions.
Any amendment to the Public Order Act (Cap. 56) must therefore be grounded in these binding human rights frameworks.
This assessment identifies several substantive shortcomings in the proposed amendment:
-
Failure to address contemporary challenges affecting assemblies in Kenya.
-
Retention of a burdensome and unclear notification regime.
-
Absence of precise definitions for essential public order management terms.
-
Inadequate safeguards regarding the use of less-lethal weapons such as tear gas and batons, which have previously resulted in fatalities.
-
Weak articulation of command responsibility and accountability mechanisms, particularly in relation to the National Police Service Act and the Police Service Standing Orders.
-
Insufficient provisions addressing police conduct, including allegations of incitement or excessive force during assemblies.
-
Lack of clarity in defining who qualifies as a police officer for purposes of public order management.
-
Failure to provide for meaningful civilian oversight.
-
Inadequate reporting and accountability frameworks for injuries and fatalities arising from assembly management.
Rather than addressing these systemic gaps, the Bill introduces measures that raise policy and human rights concerns, including:
-
Imposition of cleaning fees and other financial liabilities.
-
Conditional approvals subject to the discretion of regulating officers.
-
Restrictions on the manner and paraphernalia of assemblies.
-
Expanded penalties and personal liability for organizers.
-
Extension of permissible time frames for assemblies beyond reasonable and clearly defined limits.
Such provisions risk disproportionately burdening organizers and participants, potentially undermining the constitutional right to peaceful assembly.
In light of these concerns, any amendment to the Public Order Act (Cap. 56) should:
-
Clearly define key terms and distinguish between various forms of assemblies and protests.
-
Streamline notification procedures and establish accessible dispute resolution mechanisms.
-
Embed de-escalation protocols and structured dialogue in assembly preparation and management.
-
Avoid criminal sanctions in the regulation of peaceful assemblies, except where strictly necessary and proportionate.
-
Ensure that any sanctions are not excessive or designed to unduly restrict organizers and conveners.
-
Be developed through broad, inclusive, and transparent consultation processes involving civil society and other stakeholders
This policy assessment concludes that, in its current form, the Assembly and Demonstration Bill 2024 does not sufficiently align with constitutional guarantees or international and regional human rights obligations. Substantial revisions are necessary to ensure clarity, proportionality, accountability, and respect for fundamental freedoms.
Parliament is therefore urged to adopt comprehensive amendments consistent with these policy recommendations. Failing meaningful revision, the Bill should not proceed in its present form.
A detailed external review has also been conducted by the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL), which provides further technical analysis and recommendations.
