The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) has explained why it levelled terrorism-related charges against some of the protesters who were arrested during the June 25 and July 7 anti-government rallies.
In a statement issued on Monday, July 21, the ODPP dismissed allegations that the State is using anti-terror laws as a weapon to muzzle political opposition. The office justified the charges, saying they were based on thorough investigations that revealed concerted assaults on key institutions of the government.
“The ODPP upholds the vital role of a free press and a vibrant civil society in fostering accountability and strengthening democratic governance,” the statement read.
While recognizing the importance of civil liberties, the ODPP clarified that the terrorism charges were not meant to suppress political speech but were instead guided by legal norms and national security considerations prescribed by the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
The ODPP alleges the brutality seen during demonstrations was far beyond spontaneous civil disobedience. Investigations reportedly indicated assaults on public institutions, police stations, and courts were organized, premeditated, and aimed at destabilizing key government operations.
The State Prosecutor said preliminary investigations had revealed that attacks on public institutions such as courts, police stations, and government offices were not random, but carefully planned and coordinated.
“These incidents aimed to cripple essential government operations, instil fear, and erode public trust in democratic institutions,” the statement read.
Torching of Kikuyu Law Courts Was Terrorism, ODPP Insists
According to the ODPP, one of the most serious attacks occurred at the Kikuyu Law Courts, which were torched during the demonstrations. The ODPP referenced Chief Justice Martha Koome’s remarks during her visit to inspect the aftermath.
“Chief Justice Hon. Justice Martha Koome, speaking on 26th June 2025 after inspecting the damage at the Kikuyu Law Courts, which was torched during the demonstrations, described that incident as ‘not merely an act perpetrated by criminal elements but an act of terrorism’,” the ODPP stated.
In support of its stance, the ODPP referred to Sections 2 and 4 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which provide definitions for terrorism as an act intended to hinder the delivery of vital services, terrorize the public or state, or instill fear by deliberate destruction.
“Under Sections 2 and 4 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, such actions qualify as acts of terrorism when intended to cause serious disruption of essential services, intimidate the public or government, or create widespread fear through targeted destruction,” the statement read.
The ODPP emphasized that the decision to press terrorism charges was not taken lightly and followed careful examination of the evidence gathered during investigations.
“The ODPP is aware of public concerns regarding the potential misuse of terrorism legislation. We wish to reassure the public that all charges have been brought strictly based on available evidence. Each accused individual will be accorded a fair trial, legal representation, and full access to due process in line with the Bill of Rights under the Constitution of Kenya,” the Public Prosecutions office concluded.
