Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen has come under sharp public scrutiny after remarks made on June 26, where he appeared to direct police to shoot anyone approaching police stations during the nationwide June 25 protests, insinuating a ‘shoot to kill’ order.
“Na tumeambia polisi mtu yeyote atakaribia police station, piga yeye risasi,” Murkomen was recorded saying.
The statement, which sparked national and international outrage, was interpreted by many as a green light for extrajudicial killings. Civil society groups, the Law Society of Kenya, and opposition leaders condemned the remarks as dangerous and unconstitutional.
But in a firm and emotionally charged rebuttal on Saturday, June 28, Murkomen sought to clarify and defend his position, stating unequivocally that he has no legal authority to issue operational commands to the Inspector General of Police.
“I did not order the IG to carry out any extrajudicial killings. I cannot — the Constitution forbids me from doing so,” Murkomen said.
The CS cited the Sixth Schedule of the National Police Service Act, which allows officers to use firearms under strictly defined circumstances — to protect life, defend themselves, or stop serious crimes.
“My statement was contextual and grounded in law. I spoke with clarity of mind and legal understanding. No legal expert has challenged me on the basis of the Constitution,” he added.
Murkomen framed his comments as a defense of law and order, not a call for bloodshed, arguing that the police — some of whom were attacked and injured during the protests — have a constitutional right to defend themselves when under threat.
“I have no constitutional powers to command the police. My role is to support them and help shape policies that uphold the law. I have never, in my career, operated outside the bounds of the Constitution,” he said.
His statement comes days after he branded the Gen Z-led protests a coordinated, politically funded uprising — calling it an attempted coup masked as civil dissent.
While Murkomen’s clarification may satisfy constitutional purists, it is unlikely to calm growing public anger amid reports of fatal police shootings, including those of young, unarmed protestors.
The debate now rages on: Were Murkomen’s words ‘ shoot to kill’, a lawful warning or a veiled endorsement of state violence?
