Wamuzi News Ke
Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen has triggered a fresh wave of national controversy by unapologetically defending remarks widely condemned as a directive for police to shoot civilians approaching police stations.
With palpable defiance, Murkomen declared: “I’ll say it a million times!” insisting his stance is neither novel nor unlawful. His remarks represent a dramatic escalation of state rhetoric amid escalating street protests and mounting calls for accountability.
Murkomen’s Unyielding Justification
Murkomen asserted that his comments merely reflected the law, not orders from above. Speaking to journalists, he emphasized that he has never directed the National Police Service to act beyond legal limits, arguing instead that he was clarifying statutory authorisations already in place.
He referenced the Sixth Schedule of the National Police Service Act, which permits the use of lethal force in specific, extreme cases—such as protecting lives, property, or repelling armed attacks. Murkomen insisted his remarks were contextual and legally sound.
Critics Escalate Legal and Political Pressure
Human rights organisations including Katiba Institute, KHRC, and IMLU have filed petitions in the High Court, alleging that Murkomen’s words amount to incitement to violence and constitute constitutional breaches. They seek prohibitive orders and public retractions at his expense.
Parliamentary pressure is also brewing, as a wave of MPs has called for Murkomen’s removal, arguing that he has exceeded the authority of his office and endangered Kenyan lives.
Meanwhile, the Law Society of Kenya praises court models affirming that lethal force should remain a last resort—not a public spectacle.
Divided Public Response: Backing and Backlash
In Kerio Valley, local youth groups stood in solidarity with Murkomen, arguing that law enforcement faced unprecedented threats—including burning stations, looting and armed theft. They claim his remarks were misinterpreted and rooted in constitutional self‑defence provisions.
But rights defenders and civic leaders counter that Murkomen’s rhetoric risks fostering impunity, enabling extrajudicial violence, and dangerously eroding public trust in the rule of law.
Confusion Over Authority: Orders or Interpretation?
Murkomen clarified that as Cabinet Secretary, he lacks operational command over the Police Service and cannot issue deployment instructions. Instead, he framed his remarks as commentary on existing legal norms—not directives.
Still, critics argue that the practical effect of his statements amounts to moral sanctioning of lethal response and carries weight in the public sphere.
Stakes for National Order
This confrontation unfolds at the peak of anti‑government protests, many of which have turned deadly, prompting national soul‑searching on the limits of dissent, police use of force, and government accountability.
With the High Court docket already listing petitions related to the issue, Kenya’s institutions may soon determine whether Murkomen crossed the line—from legal interpreter to catalyst for coercive policing.
Lawmaker or Law-Breaker?
Murkomen’s unapologetic posture has amplified a national dialogue on constitutional boundaries and political responsibility. Whether he intended to incite or clarify, his words have sparked a legal maelstrom—with implications far beyond rhetoric.
As public outrage intensifies and courtroom proceedings loom, Murkomen’s promise to repeat his stance “a million times” could become the first echo in a cascade of institutional judgments.
