The Kenyan authorities have been heavily criticised for their handling of the ‘Gen Z’ protests that have taken place over the past few years. The key concerns relate to the excessive use of force by police and the online tactics allegedly employed by the Kenyan government.

Kenyans took to the streets in the summer of 2025, calling for better governance and in response to the cost of living. The unrest followed 2024’s protest movement, which began in reaction to a proposed finance bill put forward by the government that was later withdrawn. In both years, the protests were led by young Kenyans, giving rise to the movement’s nickname, ‘Gen Z’. And in both 2024 and 2025, a number of protesters were killed or injured, leading to close scrutiny of how the Kenyan authorities handled the demonstrations.

Catherine Anite, a panel member of the Independent High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom – to which the IBA’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) is Secretariat – stresses the importance of allowing people in democracies to exercise their rights. ‘Citizens are entitled to the right to peaceful protest, which the state is obliged to uphold, facilitate, and safeguard,’ she says.

Anite, a human rights lawyer based in Uganda, says that international human rights law imposes stringent regulations on the use of force by states, particularly in the context of protests. ‘The fundamental principle dictates that when force is deemed absolutely necessary, its application must strictly conform to international legal standards,’ she says. Further, the level of force employed must be commensurate with the threat posed by the protestors, she explains, ‘while necessity requires that force be utilised only when absolutely essential to achieve a legitimate law enforcement objective.’

‘Kenya must uphold their international legal obligations to protect freedom of expression [and] freedom of assembly, and investigate any violations’ of these, says Emily Foale, Project Manager at the IBAHRI. Additionally, ‘the Kenyan government’s response to the protests must acknowledge the evidence provided of the police forces’ involvement’ in deaths during the unrest, she adds.

A report by Amnesty International, published in November, alleges meanwhile that Kenyan authorities systematically deployed ‘technology-facilitated violence’ as part of a campaign to suppress protests in the country. The organisation’s analysis demonstrates ‘widespread and coordinated tactics on digital platforms to silence and suppress protests by young activists’, including through online threats, intimidating comments, abusive language, smearing and targeted disinformation, according to the organisation’s Director General, Agnès Callamard.

‘Kenya’s Constitution is clear: the right to protest and the freedom of expression are not privileges – they are guarantees,’ says Mark Stephens CBE, Co-Chair of the IBA’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), who adds that ‘freedom of assembly does not end at the edge of the pavement; it extends to the digital space.’

‘Weaponising social media against peaceful demonstrators is the digital equivalent of tear gas in the town square – both choke dissent and corrode trust,’ says Stephens, who’s also a consultant at Howard Kennedy in London. He highlights that such harassment campaigns set ‘a dangerous precedent for civic space across the continent.’

A police spokesperson referred Global Insight to a statement by Murkomen in response to Amnesty’s findings. Murkomen said that ‘the Government of Kenya does not sanction harassment, or violence against any citizen. All security agencies are required to operate strictly within the constitution, the National Police Service Act, and all applicable laws, and any officer implicated in unlawful conduct bears individual responsibility and is subject to investigation and sanction in accordance with the law.’

The use of certain rhetoric by Kenyan leaders during the unrest also attracted attention. In response to violence at protests in early July 2025, Kenya’s President William Ruto asked police to shoot protesters targeting businesses or property in the legs to immobilise them before they were arrested and taken to court. ‘Don’t kill them, but ensure their legs are broken […] Kenya cannot and will not be ruled through threats, terror, or chaos. Not under my watch,’ said Ruto.

President Ruto’s remarks came after Murkomen – speaking in late June following protests the day before – asked the police to shoot protesters who attack them and those who go near police stations. This statement led to public uproar, and Murkomen responded by issuing a policy directive on 18 July, addressed to the National Police Service, which clarified how force should be applied within the legal framework.

This policy directive was welcomed by activists and human rights organisations. Irũngũ Houghton, Executive Director for Amnesty International Kenya, tells Global Insight that the directive underscored the correct and lawful procedures that govern police conduct in handling and managing protests. ‘The 35 guidelines [in the directive] clarify and reverse early conflicting and unlawful “shoot to kill” and “shoot to maim” orders to police officers following the 25 June demonstrations that turned violent,’ says Houghton.

Houghton adds that policing protests is governed by the Constitution and the National Police Service Act. ‘Officers are legally required to wear an identifiable uniform, use lethal force only after de-escalation measures have failed, and fully cooperate with the IPOA, among other obligations,’ he says.

Michael Muchiri, a spokesperson for the Kenya Police Service, says the policy directive was welcomed as it supported the sections of the Police Act that ‘state justifiable circumstances for use of force and firearms by the police.’ The Directive ‘only reaffirms the law as it is,’ he adds.

Header image: Sydney/Adobe Stock