&w=3840&q=100)
Why are Kenya's youth taking to the streets against President William Ruto?
Protesters raise their hands next to riot police officers during the "Saba Saba People's March" anti-government protest, in Kangemi area of Nairobi, Kenya, July 7, 2025. File Image/Reuters
Kenya is witnessing a sustained wave of youth-led demonstrations that have evolved into a major political and human rights crisis.
Originally sparked by economic grievances and a proposed tax law, the protests have since broadened into widespread opposition to President William Ruto's administration.
Demonstrations escalated following the death of a young blogger in police custody and the fatal police shooting of a civilian at close range during a protest.
Clashes heated during the commemorations of Saba Saba Day on July 7, a symbolic date in Kenya's democratic history.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
What triggered the protests in Kenya?
While economic dissatisfaction has long simmered among Kenyans, the immediate trigger came last year when Kenyans protested against a proposed finance bill introduced by the Ruto administration.
The bill, which critics warned would make essential goods more expensive, reignited frustrations over the high cost of living. Though the government withdrew the initial proposal following public backlash, many of the same contentious levies were reinstated weeks later.
The reinstated measures included excise taxes on sugar, alcohol, and plastics, as well as increased charges on mobile phone and internet services.
Higher import duties further contributed to the cost burden. These financial pressures resonated especially with Kenya's youth, many of whom are unemployed or underemployed.
Amid this economic discontent, the death of blogger Albert Ojwang while in police custody added fuel to the fire. His case provoked public fury, especially after reports that senior police officials had previously raised complaints about his social media activity.
The subsequent resignation of Deputy Police Inspector General Eliud Langat, who had filed a complaint against Ojwang, did little to calm tensions.
Protests swelled again on June 25 this year — exactly one year after mass rallies against the same finance bill — and then again on July 7, Saba Saba Day, a historic date associated with Kenya's pro-democracy struggle in 1990.
Demonstrators turned out in multiple counties, citing not just economic issues but also corruption, police violence and what they described as Ruto's authoritarianism.
Where are the protests taking place in Kenya?
The largest gatherings occurred in the capital, Nairobi, where thousands of protesters — many of them waving Kenyan flags — converged on government buildings.
Security forces blocked access to Parliament and the president's office using razor wire and barriers. Several businesses, banks and public offices were shut down as a precaution.
But the movement has extended far beyond Nairobi. Demonstrations took place in at least 20 out of Kenya's 47 counties.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
According to the Police Reforms Working Group and the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR), the unrest reached cities such as Mombasa, Kisii, Kisumu, Eldoret, Meru, Nakuru, Kajiado, Kiambu and others.
In some areas, protesters clashed with police, leading to significant destruction of public and private property, including supermarkets and hospitals.
In Maatu, a town about 80 kilometres from Nairobi, police reportedly opened fire on protesters, killing at least two people and injuring several more.
Human rights groups accused law enforcement of using rubber bullets, live ammunition, tear gas and water cannons to suppress crowds. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights said it was 'deeply troubled' by reports of lethal force.
Among those killed was a 12-year-old girl in Kiambu, struck by a stray bullet while inside her home.
How has Ruto responded to the protests?
Speaking during a visit to an affordable housing site in Nairobi, Ruto instructed security forces to use violent means to stop property destruction during demonstrations.
'Anyone going to burn people's property should be shot in the leg, be hospitalised and later taken to court upon recovery. Do not kill them but break their leg,' the Kenyan president declared.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
He doubled down in subsequent statements, accusing his political rivals of inciting violence with the aim of forcibly removing him from power.
'This country will not be destroyed by a few people who are impatient and who want a change of government using unconstitutional means. It is not going to happen,' he said.
'Kenya cannot and will not be ruled through threats, terror, or chaos. Not under my watch.'
Ruto further warned that any assault on law enforcement would be treated as 'a declaration of war,' adding that 'you can call me whatever names you want to call me, but I will make sure there is peace and stability in Kenya by all means.'
Despite mounting criticism, Ruto maintained that his administration was the first to seriously tackle the youth unemployment crisis. He questioned why discontent had spiked during his tenure: 'Why cause all the chaos during my time?'
How have the protests impacted Kenya?
The KNCHR said that at least 31 people were killed on July 7 alone, with more than 100 injured and at least 532 people arrested during the protests.
These figures bring the total death toll from demonstrations over the past year to over 100. The Kenya police, however, reported only 11 deaths on July 7.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
In its official statement, the KNCHR also noted two cases of forced disappearance and accused police of colluding with armed gangs. These gangs, reportedly equipped with machetes and spears, were allegedly used to terrorise protester strongholds.
Opposition figures and civil society groups have condemned what they describe as state-sponsored violence. Religious organisations and rights bodies have called for independent investigations into the killings, looting, property damage and arbitrary detentions.
At least two hospitals were ransacked during the unrest, with medical equipment stolen and staff members harassed, according to local reports.
In response to allegations of political interference and unlawful detentions, five police officers have been charged in connection with the blogger's death and a separate shooting of a civilian. Investigations remain ongoing.
Meanwhile, opposition leaders have accused the government of transporting armed gangs using unmarked vehicles and staging targeted violence in opposition-dominated areas.
They issued a nationwide boycott of businesses perceived to be aligned with the ruling administration, calling the current regime 'hostile' and declaring that 'it cannot be reasoned with.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'This regime is hostile. It cannot be reasoned with. It must be resisted. We will not rest. We will not retreat. We will not surrender,' read a joint opposition statement.
Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, who was elected alongside Ruto in 2022 but later impeached after a fallout, pushed back against claims that the opposition sought to unseat the president through unconstitutional means.
'Nobody wants you out of government unconstitutionally. We want to face you on the ballot in August 2027, so just relax,' Gachagua said.
Calls for calm also came from the Kenya National Cohesion and Integration Commission, a government body that condemned excessive force and warned against the politicisation of ethnicity in times of civil unrest.
Kenya's Chief Justice Martha Koome voiced concern that escalating protests risk damaging the country's hard-won democratic gains, urging restraint from all sides.
Slogans like 'Ruto must go' and 'wantam' — a shorthand for 'one term' — have become rallying cries in towns and cities across the African nation.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
With inputs from agencies
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
44 minutes ago
- First Post
No country for migrants: How the world has fallen out of love with immigration
Even the once relatively migrant-friendly countries like Britain, Germany, Denmark, Canada, Australia, and, of course, that supposed cradle of the 'melting pot' revolution, the US, are turning hostile towards foreigners read more A wave of intense anti-immigrant sentiment is sweeping the developed world, feeding off deepening public anger over the cost-of-living crisis and growing pressure on public services. Representational image: REUTERS/Andrew Kelly From 'world citizens' to 'citizens of nowhere', migrants have been on a long downhill journey amid a rising tide of xenophobia across the Western world. And now the world's most powerful political leader has lent it new legitimacy. US President Donald Trump, whose public threat to deport one of the country's most successful entrepreneurs back to the country of his birth just because he no longer gets along with him, shows that the immigration debate has gone beyond just rhetoric: the bark has acquired a bite. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump has been so angered by Elon Musk's criticism of his 'big, beautiful' spending bill, which reduces subsidies to his electric car venture, Tesla, that he is considering terminating his American citizenship and sending him back to his native South Africa. Asked by reporters if he would deport Musk, Trump said, 'I don't know. We'll have to take a look.' If the immigration status of the world's richest man is not safe, it shows how vulnerable ordinary men must feel. Musk may not be exactly a likeable person, and few would perhaps shed tears if he were to be deported. And in all probability nothing will happen to Musk. But it's not about Musk. It's about a climate in which the world's most powerful executive thinks it's amusing to threaten to upend real people's lives. And that's not funny. But it's not just in America that immigrants are living on an edge. In Britain, they were referred to as 'citizens of nowhere' by erstwhile prime minister Theresa May while she sent vans around to immigrant neighbourhoods telling them to 'go home' if they were illegal. But even 'legals' are not safe, with immigration rules changing so frequently that one can never be sure what lies ahead. Among the hardest-hit are those who migrate through fast-track routes introduced from time to time and are then abruptly revoked, replaced by new rules applied even to those who are in the country legally. In one of the most controversial such cases, hundreds of Indian workers were forced to return home in the mid-2000s following arbitrary retrospective changes to residency rules for high-skilled immigrants. The new legislation was brought in, ignoring at least two high court rulings directing the Home Office to honour the original terms of migrants' visas. Indians have also been disproportionately affected by the frequent tightening of student visa rules and intra-company transfers. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In recent years, foreign students have been stripped of a number of key entitlements, and there's now a proposal for the graduate visa route to be scrapped except for those pursuing postgraduate research degrees. Earlier this year, the government announced plans to reduce the length of time for which overseas students can live and work in the UK. There's already a ban on bringing dependents with them. Meanwhile, Indians seeking student visas are up against more hurdles, as India has been placed in the category of countries whose nationals are most likely to overstay and claim asylum. Applicants from these countries, which also include Pakistanis, Nigerians, and Sri Lankans, will be scrutinised more closely. The crackdown comes amid government claims that study visas are being increasingly used as a backdoor into Britain's creaking asylum system. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is concerned about a sharp increase in migrants who travel to Britain on study visas and, on their expiry, lodge asylum claims to extend their stay. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In short, there's no place safe for those seeking to realise their 'phoren' dream. Over the weekend, Russia-born Nobel Prize-winning Dutch physicist Andre Geim, who had been a Dutch citizen since the 1990s, was stripped of his citizenship on flimsy technical grounds. A wave of intense anti-immigrant sentiment is sweeping the developed world, feeding off deepening public anger over the cost-of-living crisis and growing pressure on public services. The narrative that foreigners are 'stealing' local jobs and hijacking public housing has been so successfully sold that every immigrant has come to be viewed with suspicion. Even the once relatively migrant-friendly countries like Britain, Germany, Denmark, Canada, Australia, and, of course, that supposed cradle of the 'melting pot' revolution, the US, are turning hostile towards foreigners. Yet there's no let-up in the scramble to go abroad. And it's not just the unemployed and lowly workers desperately seeking a better future; curiously, even well-heeled professionals and the affluent class—the so-called 'high net worth individuals'—are equally desperate to get out. And on hand to help them is a thriving cottage industry of immigration lawyers and consultants well-versed in bending rules. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This has triggered a debate in India on whether the flight of its professional elite constitutes a massive brain drain that should be discouraged or contributes to India's soft power and needs to be encouraged. 'Is enhancing soft power a fair trade-off for losing valuable human capital?', asks a new provocative book on the subject, Secession of the Successful: The Flight out of New India (Penguin/Viking) by noted journalist and academic Sanjaya Baru. Baru argues that much of modern India's development owes itself to the 'contribution of hundreds of talented Indians who stayed home, some even returning home, to build a 'new India' after Independence'. 'The 'temples of modern India'—the new research and teaching institutions, the public sector industries, the atomic energy and space capabilities, and so on—were built by Indian brains that chose to stay home,' he writes. Those on the other side of the argument feel strongly that an expanding and resourceful Indian diaspora is good for India. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Besides lending heft to its soft power, it benefits the Indian economy through inward remittances. There are calls for the creation of a Ministry of Emigration to support emigrants and tap their potential to the fullest. However, these discussions are only a sideshow in the broader global debate on immigration driven by populist nationalists—pushing the issue to the top of almost every government's agenda. The following comment by Nicola Procaccini, a Member of European Parliament for Italy's ruling Brothers of Italy, whose leader Giorgia Meloni is the country's prime minister, sums up how the pendulum has swung against migrants. In an interview with the New York Times, he recalled that when he was first elected to the European Parliament six years ago, colleagues from centrist parties avoided even being seen with him. Brothers of Italy was then a fringe party whose hard-line stance on immigration was met with scorn. 'My hand would hang midair because they don't shake hands with fascists… Now those tables have turned. Those who told us our approach was racist and xenophobic are slowly starting to say, 'Well, maybe they're a bit right,'' he said, noting that mainstream politicians are now embracing his party's anti-migration agenda. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD And he's right. Nobody wants migrants anymore. But it seems migrants themselves still haven't got the memo, judging from the continuing clamour to go abroad. Hasan Suroor is author of 'Unmasking Secularism: Why We Need A New Hindu-Muslim Deal'. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
'Certainly need time to analyse': Kremlin says Trump statements on Russia and Putin are serious
'We certainly need time to analyse what was said in Washington. And if and when President Putin deems it necessary, he will definitely comment,' said Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov read more The Kremlin on Tuesday described recent comments made by US President Donald Trump, including a threat of sanctions on buyers of Russian exports, as 'serious' and said they warranted careful analysis. The remarks came in response to a significant policy shift by President Trump, who on Monday announced the delivery of new weapons to Ukraine and threatened sanctions on countries that continue to purchase Russian exports. The move is seen as a signal of growing frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin and a renewed push to pressure Moscow into agreeing to a peace deal over the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'I'm disappointed in him (Putin), but I'm not done with him. But I'm disappointed in him,' BBC quoted Trump, who has said he wants to be remembered as a peacemaker, as saying. Asked about Trump's recent statements, Reuters quoted Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying, 'The US president's statements are very serious. Some of them are addressed personally to President Putin.' 'We certainly need time to analyse what was said in Washington. And if and when President Putin deems it necessary, he will definitely comment,' he added. Peskov, seemingly in reference to reports of new weapons shipments to Kyiv, added: 'Decisions which are being made in Washington, in Nato countries, and squarely in Brussels, are perceived by the Ukrainian side not as a signal for peace, but as a signal to continue the war.' He reaffirmed Russia's willingness to pursue direct negotiations with Ukraine, stating that Moscow remained prepared for further talks and was still awaiting a response from Kyiv on when discussions could resume. With inputs from agencies
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
What is the controversy over BBC's Gaza documentary?
The BBC is facing backlash after it aired — then removed — a Gaza documentary narrated by a 13-year-old boy whose father is a Hamas official. The broadcaster admitted a serious editorial lapse in not disclosing this connection. Now, amid political pressure, the controversy has many questioning the BBC's impartiality read more People sit outside the BBC Broadcasting House offices and recording studios in London, UK, January 17, 2022. File Image/Reuters The BBC is facing controversy surrounding one of its recent documentaries on Gaza, after it emerged that the child narrator of the programme is the son of a senior Hamas official. The public broadcaster has been accused of breaching its own editorial standards on accuracy. The film in question, titled Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone, focused on the experiences of children living through the ongoing war in Gaza. Narrated by a 13-year-old Palestinian boy named Abdullah, the documentary was produced by the independent company Hoyo Films and initially broadcast on BBC platforms in February. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD However, the programme was taken down just five days later after it was discovered that the narrator's father, Ayman Alyazouri, holds the position of Deputy Minister of Agriculture in Gaza's Hamas-run government — a fact not disclosed to BBC editorial teams before the broadcast. Internal BBC review reveals serious editorial failings The BBC's Director of Editorial Complaints and Reviews, Peter Johnston, led a comprehensive internal investigation into how the programme was commissioned, reviewed, and aired. The inquiry, which examined 5,000 documents and more than 150 hours of footage from the film's 10-month production period, concluded that the documentary violated the corporation's accuracy guidelines by failing to disclose relevant information that could materially affect audience perception. Johnston's report stated that the background of the narrator's father constituted 'critical information' that should have been disclosed prior to transmission. 'Regardless of how the significance or otherwise of the Narrator's father's position was judged, the audience should have been informed about this,' the report stated. The review made clear that although the BBC's guidelines on impartiality were not breached, the failure to accurately represent the narrator's background amounted to misleading the public. It also noted that there was no indication that the boy's father or family had influenced the film's content in any way. BBC Director-General Tim Davie acknowledged the gravity of the findings, saying the investigation had 'identified a significant failing in relation to accuracy.' BBC Director-General Tim Davie is pictured at BBC World Service offices in London, UK, April 28, 2022. File Image/Reuters In response, Davie pledged that the BBC would now act 'on two fronts — fair, clear and appropriate actions to ensure proper accountability and the immediate implementation of steps to prevent such errors being repeated.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD BBC News CEO Deborah Turness also admitted fault, stating on BBC Radio 4's The World at One that 'we are owning where we have made mistakes, finding out what went wrong, acting on the findings, and we've said we're sorry.' Hoyo Films accepts partial responsibility, apologises Hoyo Films, the independent production house behind the documentary, also came under the spotlight for failing to inform the BBC of the narrator's family background. According to the BBC's findings, three members of the Hoyo Films team were aware of the narrator's father's government role during production, but this information was not passed on to BBC editorial staff. While the internal review did not find that the production company had acted with intent to deceive, it placed the bulk of the responsibility for the breach on Hoyo Films, stating that the BBC also shared some accountability for insufficient oversight and inadequate follow-up on editorial queries before airing the film. In a statement following the release of the review, Hoyo Films said it accepted the conclusions of the report and 'apologises for the mistake that resulted in a breach of the editorial guidelines.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The company also welcomed the opportunity to explore the re-editing of the documentary for future use, potentially in shorter formats for the BBC's iPlayer archive. The report also revealed that Abdullah had received a payment of £795 for his participation, paid via his adult sister. He was also given a second-hand mobile phone and a gift card for a computer game. Altogether, the compensation amounted to £1,817. A financial audit found the sum to be within a reasonable range for such work. Ofcom opens separate investigation into BBC conduct In light of the BBC's findings, the UK's media regulator Ofcom confirmed that it would launch its own inquiry under its rule that prohibits factual programmes from 'materially misleading the audience.' An Ofcom spokesperson stated, 'Having examined the BBC's findings, we are launching an investigation under our rule which states that factual programmes must not materially mislead the audience.' Dame Melanie Dawes, Chief Executive of Ofcom, later told British newspaper Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme that the BBC had been 'slow to get a grip' on recent issues, including this documentary and other editorial controversies. 'It's very frustrating that the BBC has had some own goals in this area,' she said, warning that continued missteps could lead to a 'loss of confidence' in the broadcaster's independence and integrity. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Calls for reform in the UK 'My job is to make sure that we uphold the highest standards and that the public and parliament can have confidence in the BBC,' UK Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy told reporters. She noted that while the BBC had taken some steps to rebuild public trust, 'there have been a series of catastrophic failures over recent weeks.' In response to the scandal, the BBC outlined several corrective measures, as reported by BBC: A new leadership role will be established for news documentaries and current affairs, providing strategic oversight of long-form output across the news division. Fresh editorial guidance will mandate enhanced scrutiny of narrators, especially in content involving contested or sensitive geopolitical issues. A new 'first gate' commissioning system will ensure that all compliance and editorial considerations are documented and addressed before production approval. Artists & journalists rally behind and against the BBC A collective of more than 500 high-profile figures — including actor Riz Ahmed, filmmakers Ken Loach and Mike Leigh, and broadcaster Gary Lineker — signed a public letter in February defending the original documentary. Organised by Artists for Palestine UK, the letter warned that 'a political campaign to discredit the programme' risked further silencing Palestinian voices in Western media. Conversely, the Campaign Against Antisemitism condemned the BBC's handling of the situation, calling the review's recommendations 'frankly insulting.' The group argued that the report lacked new insight and claimed it appeared designed 'to exonerate the BBC.' Former BBC content chief Danny Cohen and JK Rowling's agent Neil Blair were among more than 40 Jewish television executives who had earlier written to the broadcaster, raising serious questions about its editorial processes and standards. Meanwhile, internal dissent is also growing. Over 100 BBC journalists recently criticised the decision not to air another Gaza-focused documentary, Gaza: Medics Under Fire, which was eventually broadcast by Channel 4. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In a letter to senior leadership, the journalists accused the corporation of failing to report 'without fear or favour when it comes to Israel,' and claimed the editorial judgment appeared driven by 'fear of being perceived as critical of the Israeli government.' The BBC also faced backlash in June for broadcasting a performance at Glastonbury by rap punk duo Bob Vylan, during which they led the crowd in chants of 'death' to the Israeli military — prompting further criticism of the BBC's editorial oversight. On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a coordinated attack on southern Israel, killing approximately 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli officials. In response, Israel began a large-scale military offensive in Gaza. As of now, Gaza's Health Ministry reports that more than 58,000 people have been killed, with more than half of the fatalities being women and children. The ministry does not differentiate between combatants and civilians, though the United Nations and other international bodies rely on its casualty figures as the most reliable source available. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Also Watch: With inputs from agencies
