Havi questions police brutality compensation report
National
By
Juliet Omelo
| Jun 17, 2026
Senior Counsel Nelson Havi has questioned the constitutional basis of a report recommending compensation for victims of police brutality, arguing that the process bypassed established legal mechanisms for determining responsibility and risks shielding perpetrators from accountability.
Speaking after the release of a report by the Kenya Human Rights Commission identifying approximately 1,100 victims eligible for compensation, Havi said while compensating victims whose fundamental rights and freedoms have been violated is supported by the Constitution, the process adopted to identify beneficiaries and determine compensation was flawed.
"The compensation of victims whose fundamental rights and freedoms have been violated is not an enterprise that is objected to by Kenyans. What is objected to is the manner in which this process began,” Havi said.
He argued that the identification of victims, determination of liability and assessment of compensation are functions that should be undertaken by constitutionally mandated institutions rather than panels established outside the legal framework.
According to Havi, the body tasked with reviewing cases of police brutality was constituted outside constitutional provisions, a move that became the subject of litigation in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
READ MORE
Ride out of poverty: How a widow built wealth through boda boda business
Security and liberalised skies key to growth of aviation sector in Africa
Why KRA has changed tack in revenue collections
Budget reality check: Moody's warns Kenya of fiscal pain ahead
Not for beginners: Why new market entrants quit easily
How to use digital platforms without losing business identity
Anatomy of a loan default and what it will cost you
Monopoly of Sh1,000 note and why Kenya's economy runs on it
Ruto hits out at global lenders, calls for Africa's inclusion
How Wilson Airport runway rehabilitation is hurting airlines
The Senior Counsel questioned whether taxpayers should shoulder the financial burden of compensating victims before those directly responsible for the violations are identified and held accountable.
"For youl to compensate, there must be liability. Who is liable for the death of Albert or Joan? Will we, as the people of Kenya, contribute money from our taxes to pay for atrocities committed by specific government officials?"
Havi maintained that determining culpability should be the starting point of any compensation process, arguing that individuals who authorised or participated in rights violations should face both legal and administrative consequences.
"If key government officials ordered the shooting of civilians, there must be a process to hold them accountable for those actions," he said, citing Article 10 of the Constitution on national values and the integrity provisions contained in Chapter Six.
He warned that compensating victims without addressing personal responsibility by perpetrators could entrench a cycle of impunity within the security sector.
"What stops the same individuals from again tomorrow, next month or next year?" he posed.
"We are not making progress if public resources are used to settle claims while those responsible remain in office,” Havi added.
Havi further criticised the report as evidence of a growing tendency by the Executive, with the acquiescence of Parliament, to sidestep constitutional requirements instead of addressing underlying governance failures.
"This report does not provide a viable solution. It finds a way around the requirements of the Constitution. Individuals who can be identified and held personally responsible should not escape liability while ordinary Kenyans pay through their taxes,” he said.
While acknowledging the suffering endured by victims of police brutality and the need for redress, Havi insisted that justice requires both compensation and accountability.
"It cannot be enough to compensate victims while failing to establish who violated their rights. The pursuit of justice must include consequences for those responsible,” he said.
The remarks add to the growing national debate over police accountability, constitutionalism and whether state compensation for victims of rights violations should be accompanied by personal liability for public officials found culpable for authorising or facilitating such abuses.