Four activists, Julius Haruda Migori, Dickson Muli, Collins Otieno, and Julius Kamau, were presented in court on September 21, 2026, over an alleged incident of obstructing the operation of vehicles along Mama Ngina Street in Nairobi. The charge sheet accuses them of unlawfully obstructing the operation of vehicles, contrary to Section 58(c) of the Road Act, Chapter 408 of the Laws of Kenya.
According to the prosecution, the four, jointly with others who have not been presented before the court, barricaded the road using burners, thereby obstructing the movement of motor vehicles. The incident occurred on September 21, 2026, and the activists' lawyer challenged the charge sheet, arguing that the accused had notified the police of their intention to hold a demonstration.
The defence submitted that the Constitution protects the right of people to assemble, demonstrate, picket, and present petitions peacefully and unarmed. The lawyer added that it was the responsibility of the police to provide security for demonstrators who had given notice. The defence further alleged that it was police officers, rather than the demonstrators, who were responsible for obstructing roads during Monday's events.
The lawyer asked the court to assert its authority and ensure that police operate within the law, arguing that officers appeared not to have properly handled the demonstrations. The prosecution opposed the defence application, maintaining that the charge sheet was proper and sufficiently detailed to give the accused adequate notice of the allegations against them.
The prosecution argued that at this stage, the court's primary concern was whether the accused understood the charges against them and could therefore proceed to plead. The prosecution consequently urged the court to dismiss the objection and direct the accused to take their pleas. A ruling on the matter will be delivered at 2 pm.
The case has raised concerns about the handling of demonstrations by the police and the rights of activists to assemble peacefully. The defence's argument that the police were responsible for obstructing roads during the demonstrations highlights the complexities of the issue. The court's decision will have implications for future demonstrations and the relationship between the police and activists.
The four activists are being represented by a lawyer who is advocating for their rights to be protected. The case will continue at a later date, and the activists' fate remains uncertain. The incident has sparked debate about the balance between public safety and the right to peaceful assembly.
Key points
- The four activists have challenged the charge sheet, arguing that they had notified the police of their intention to hold a demonstration and that it was the police who obstructed the road.
- The prosecution has opposed the defence application, maintaining that the charge sheet is proper and sufficiently detailed.
- A ruling on the matter will be delivered at 2 pm, which will determine the next steps in the case.
