Eight reported dead, more than 400 injured after protests erupt in Kenya
At least eight people died and 400 were injured during nationwide anti-government protests in Kenya on Wednesday, a year after deadly demonstrations against a tax bill, the national rights watchdog said.
Thousands of Kenyans took to the streets to commemorate last year's demonstrations, in which more than 60 people died, with police firing tear gas and water cannon to disperse them in the capital Nairobi, according to local media and a Reuters witness.
Some protesters clashed with police, and the government-funded Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) said late on Wednesday that eight deaths had been reported across the country, all 'allegedly from gunshot wounds'.
'Over 400 casualties have been reported, including demonstrators, police officers and journalists,' KNCHR said in a statement shared on its official X account.
The watchdog did not say who had shot the victims, noting heavy police deployment and 'allegations of excessive use of force, including rubber bullets, live ammunition and water cannon, resulting in numerous injuries'.
Kenyan police spokesperson Muchiri Nyaga did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the KNCHR statement.
An official at the capital's main Kenyatta National Hospital said the facility had received dozens of wounded people, '107 admitted, most with gunshot injuries', the source said, referring to rubber bullets and live rounds. He said no deaths had been reported at the hospital.
National electricity provider Kenya Power said one of its security guards was shot dead during the protests while patrolling its headquarters in Nairobi.
Large crowds were seen earlier heading in the direction of State House, the president's official residence, in scenes broadcast by Kenyan channel NTV before it and another broadcaster, KTN, were pulled off the air after defying an order to stop live broadcasts of the demonstrations.
'We have been switched off from all the signal broadcasters, now we are only live on YouTube and the website,' a senior official at NTV's parent Nation Media Group told Reuters.
Both channels resumed broadcasts later on Wednesday after a court in Nairobi suspended the order issued by the Communications Authority of Kenya.
The communications authority's order was condemned by the Kenya Editors Guild, which called it 'a gross violation of the Constitution.'
Anger against police
Protesters torched court facilities in Kikuyu town on the outskirts of Nairobi, Citizen TV reported. Flames and thick smoke billowed from the court building in a video posted on the broadcaster's X account.
Isolated clashes were reported in the port city of Mombasa, according to NTV, with protests also in the towns of Kitengela, Kisii, Matuu and Nyeri.
Although last year's protests faded after President William Ruto withdrew proposed tax hikes, public anger has remained over the use of excessive force by security agencies, with fresh demonstrations this month over the death of a blogger in police custody.
Six people, including three police officers, were charged with murder on Tuesday over the killing of 31-year-old blogger and teacher, Albert Ojwang. All have pleaded not guilty.
Ojwang's death has become a lightning rod for Kenyans still mourning those who perished in last year's demonstrations, blamed on security forces, against a backdrop of dozens of unexplained disappearances.
'We are fighting for the rights of our fellow youths and Kenyans and the people who died since June 25 … we want justice,' Lumumba Harmony, a protester, told Reuters in Nairobi.
The unprecedented scenes on 25 June 2024, showing police firing at protesters as they broke through barriers to enter parliament, created the biggest crisis of Ruto's presidency and sparked alarm among Kenya's international allies. DM
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
6 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
MK Party takes battle against Cachalia to the High Court
JOHANNESBURG - After being shown the door by the Constitutional Court last month, the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party is taking its battle against the newly-appointed police Minister Firoz Cachalia to the High Court. It has filed an urgent case in the North Gauteng Division seeking to have Cachalia's appointment declared unconstitutional and invalid. The party is also challenging President Cyril Ramaphosa's decision to establish a commission of inquiry into alleged corruption, collusion and political interference within the police service. ALSO READ: Cachalia says he's not been given a timeline for his stint as acting police minister Similar to the case it lodged when it was denied direct access to the Constitutional Court, the MK Party is now asking the High Court to review the decisions taken by Ramaphosa when he decided to put Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on special leave. It followed claims by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi that Mchunu was allegedly colluding with a criminal network that has infiltrated the South African Police Service (SAPS). On 1 August 2025, Cachalia was sworn into office to act in Mchunu's place, a move the MK Party also believes is unconstitutional. The party is now asking the High Court to consider these decisions, to find them illegal, invalid and inconsistent with the Constitution, and to set them aside. It's asked the court to enrol the matter for its first hearing on 26 August 2025.
The Citizen
8 hours ago
- The Citizen
Zuma and MK party file urgent court bid to challenge Ramaphosa's Mchunu decision
The application by Zuma and the MK party comes after their recent loss in the Constitutional Court. Former president Jacob Zuma and the MK party have not given up the fight and have lodged an urgent application against President Cyril Ramaphosa in the High Court in Pretoria. The application by Zuma and the MK party comes after their recent loss in the Constitutional Court. What Zuma wants In the notice of motion, Zuma and his party want the high court to declare Ramaphosa's decision to place Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu on special leave. They also want the appointment of Wits law Professor Feroz Cachalia as acting police minister and the establishment of a commission of inquiry to be declared invalid, null and void and unconstitutional and set aside. ConCourt ruling The ConCourt on 31 July 2025 ruled that the application does not engage the court's jurisdiction and refused direct access to the MK party and Zuma in its matter against Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa's lawyer Kate Hofmeyr argued that cases that can exclusively be decided by the Constitutional Court are very limited. 'This matter does not fall within this court's exclusive jurisdiction. Very few matters do, and this is not one of them. 'Any allegation that the power was exercised unlawfully falls under our constitutional scheme to the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) to consider first. Additionally, there is no pressing need for this court, on 10 days' notice, to decide the issues in this matter as a court of first and last instance,' Hofmeyr said. This basically means that Zuma and the MK party had to approach the high court first, which they have now done. ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party case should've started in High Court, ConCourt hears [VIDEOS] The court ruling was handed down two hours after it hosted a special ceremonial sitting for retiring Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, whom Ramaphosa appointed to chair a commission to probe explosive allegations by KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) top cop Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanzi of criminal infiltration in the South African justice system. Constitutional matter In his founding affidavit to the high court, Zuma said he is bringing the application in his personal capacity, but because the application is urgent and in the 'interest of justice' he is also deposing the papers on behalf of the MK party. 'The twin purposes of this application are to re-assert the merits of the application which were left unadjudicated by the Constitutional Court on account of its findings on exclusive jurisdiction and direct access; and to raise new grounds of illegality and irrationality based on events which arose post the 30 July 2025 hearing in the Constitutional Court,' Zuma argues. Zuma said that the present application is indisputably a constitutional matter. Section 169(1)(a) of the Constitution provides that the High Court of South Africa may decide any constitutional matter except a matter that the Constitutional Court has agreed to hear by way of direct access or is assigned by legislation to another court of a status similar to the High Court. 'This is such a matter because the Constitutional Court, rightly or in my view wrongly, declined to grant direct access. That decision must be respected as a fact until or unless it is set aside,' Zuma said. ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party accuse ConCourt of ignoring 'most serious' violations by Ramaphosa Urgency In his papers, Zuma argues that in his Constitutional Court application, Ramaphosa did not contest the urgency, exclusive jurisdiction, and/or direct access. 'The president sought and was allowed to opportunistically hide behind those technicalities to escape much-needed judicial accountability for the unjustifiable multiple breaches of the rule of law. There are no more hiding places. 'The serious and unprecedented revelations of alleged criminality made by Lieutenant-General Mkhwanazi, as another highly qualified whistleblower, in the tradition of former Intelligence Chief Arthur Fraser, can no longer be ignored or swept under the carpet at the request of the president,' Zuma argued. Zuma explains that the urgency of the application is 'clearly not self-created, and it can never be reasonably asserted that relief may be obtained in due course.' 'The impugned commission has already commenced and continues to operate at huge cost to the taxpayer. In the (unlikely) event of its delivering a final report in six months' time, the matter would still not have been heard in due course.' Cachalia Zuma also argues that Cachalia has since assumed office and will be 'making decisions which affect the security of the people of South Africa' while Mchunu 'who has been illegally placed on leave of absence by the president continues to earn a salary and enjoy other expensive privileges such as bodyguards, drivers, free ministerial accommodation, air travel domestic workers and the like.' 'It is trite that the matter involves very serious and unprecedented allegations of executive and judicial capture which, if true, constitute a threat to the very democracy prevailing in South Africa. 'It is impossible to imagine a greater catastrophe than that which would transpire if the allegations are true and the matter is not heard as one of the utmost urgency. In relation to the question of urgency, the merits must be regarded as true and proven,' Zuma argues. Senzo Mchunu Zuma also argues that there is 'no express legal provision which empowers Ramaphosa to place a minister on leave of absence. 'The respondents can therefore only rely on an implied power which is said to flow from the power to dismiss. 'It will be argued that the decision does not pass the reasonable necessity test because the power to dismiss in section 91(2) must not be confused with the power to dismiss an employee,' he said. 'Financial benefit' Zuma said the appointment of Cachalia is 'totally incoherent' and false explanations given by Ramaphosa in 'respect of this decision owe to the fact that it is rooted in improper motives and bad faith'. 'Its purpose if to grant undue financial benefits to Minister Mchunu at the expense of the taxpayer and to shield him from accountability and well-deserved dismissal or removal from the Cabinet. 'In explaining this appointment, the president has performed both somersaults and backflips in a series of incompatible volte face manoeuvres, all pointing to sheer irrationality,' Zuma argued. In his papers, Zuma argued that following the swearing in of the acting police minister, both Ramaphosa and Cachalia gave media interviews, with differing accounts of his official title and status. Questions to Ramaphosa Zuma's attorneys sent a letter to Ramaphosa on 4 August 2025, posing 15 unanswered questions regarding his actions and justifications. Zuma said Ramaphosa's response was 'inadequate'. 'Given the public importance of the issues and the imminence of the 1 August date for the assumption of office by Professor Cachalia, the matter cries out for direct access.' ALSO READ: Zuma demands Ramaphosa resign by Friday, or else… Madlanga Commission Zuma also argues that there is no legal provision which is capable of endowing the president with the power to confer upon the Madlanga Commission the powers which are reserved to the Judicial Service and/or Magistrates' Commissions, to investigate allegations of misconduct on the part of members of the judiciary. 'There are specific and well-accepted policy reasons why such powers are exclusively reserved for the bodies referred to above. These include the preservation of the independence, dignity and effectiveness of the judiciary.' The matter is expected to heard on 26 August 2025. ALSO READ: Madlanga inquiry: How much probe into Mkhwanazi's allegations will cost
IOL News
9 hours ago
- IOL News
Macua demands urgent withdrawal of the Mineral Resources Development Bill
Members of the Mining Affected Communities United in Action (Macua) gathered outside the offices of the Mineral and Resources, in Pretoria, to make submission against the proposed Mineral Resources Development Bill. Image: Supplied The Mining Affected Communities United in Action (Macua) has called for the withdrawal of the current proposed Mineral Resources Development Bill, saying it should be restructured and rebuilt with the people at the centre. The organisation held a protest in five provincial offices of the Mineral and Resources across the country on Wednesday, to make submissions opposing the draft bill. The provinces include Pretoria (Gauteng), Klerksdorp (North West), Emalahleni (Mpumalanga), Polokwane (Limpopo), and Welkom in the Free State. The Bill was published for public comment on May 20, 2025, with a submission deadline of August 13, 2025. It aims to ensure policy and regulatory certainty, enhance investor confidence, reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies, and improve turnaround times for mining rights, permits, and regulatory approvals, as well as formally recognise artisanal mining and advance transformation in the mining sector. However, in its submission, Macua said this is no milestone for those who bear the brunt of mining's footprint, those who live with the dust, displacement, environmental degradation, and broken promises. The organisation said the Bill fails to deliver justice, equity, or transformation. The submission document stated that despite extensive, legally grounded submissions from Macua, the MPRDA Coalition, Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS), and other civil society partners, including constitutional benchmarks, legislative proposals, and community-authored clauses, core inputs have been ignored, and the result is a Bill that not only omits the tenets of post-apartheid justice but also reconfigures the regulatory architecture to entrench exclusion under the guise of reform. 'Nowhere is this betrayal more evident than in the Bill's refusal to enshrine Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) for communities residing on communal and customary land. The Constitution, IPILRA (Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act), and landmark rulings such as Maledu and Baleni affirm that land rights holders must provide informed consent, not merely be 'consulted', before mining can proceed,' said Macua, adding that the Bill entrenches a weak and discretionary consultation model that lacks enforceability. 'Worse, it omits any recognition of customary governance systems or collective land rights, ignoring the lived realities of rural, informal, and traditional communities,' the organisation said. Independent Media tried to get a comment from the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources, but spokesperson Johannes Mokobane said he was in the meeting and will revert. The submission also stated that this is not a legislative oversight, but a deliberate political choice and one that aligns with the interests of extractive capital rather than those of historically dispossessed communities. Macua said this paves the way for forced removals, land dispossession, and State-sanctioned displacement without community control. Macua added that the Bill was not based on meaningful public consultation and it has ignored the differential impact of mining on women and landless people, adding that it offers no impact analysis of removing community protections. 'Using such a shallow and exclusionary process as the evidentiary foundation of the law is indefensible.' The submission document stated that the Bill provides no framework for displacement, resettlement or restitution. Despite years of documented abuses, including relocations without compensation, dispossession of burial sites, and community fragmentation, the Bill sidesteps the issue entirely. 'This silence perpetuates spatial injustice, especially in the context of the government's Critical Minerals Strategy, which targets new zones for extraction in areas like the Waterberg, Sekhukhune, and Pondoland without safeguards,' said Macua. The organisation said it proposed statutory protections against forced removal, minimum compensation standards, as well as environmental and social planning obligations tied to land tenure, but all were ignored. Macua said the Bill introduces a new artisanal mining permit under Section 27A, but it is a deeply flawed and exclusionary instrument that fails to reflect the realities of informal mining communities or support meaningful transformation. According to Macua, while the Bill appears to empower the minister to identify areas for artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM), this authority is purely discretionary and is not accompanied by any procedural requirements, designation criteria, or support structures. The organisation said there is no legal obligation to map, consult, or designate zones where ASM can operate lawfully and sustainably.
