NAIROBI, Kenya, Oct 16 — For many Kenyans, the challenge of reporting police misconduct extends beyond finding the courage to speak out to whether they can pursue accountability without fear of retaliation.
More than a decade after the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution ushered in a new framework for policing, high-profile cases of alleged abuse and deaths in police custody continue to test the country’s commitment to reform.
For Nairobi resident Barack Ngumba, reporting an officer can expose a complainant to further risk.
“In Kenya, especially if you are living in Nairobi, I think it is very difficult to report police officers and hold them accountable for crimes. If they realise it was you who reported them, they will definitely come for you,” he said.
Paul Neko, another Nairobi resident, argues that police officers must recognise that the authority conferred by their uniform does not place them above the law.
“Let every officer know that a uniform is not a licence to extort the public. Our police officers deserve respect. The majority who serve honestly deserve protection from the shame brought upon them by corrupt colleagues. The badge must never become a shield for criminal conduct,” he said.
Their concerns raise a fundamental question about Kenya’s police reforms: more than a decade after the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution, have accountability mechanisms changed how citizens experience policing?
The Constitution established safeguards intended to promote professionalism, discipline and respect for fundamental rights, but allegations of unlawful arrests, torture, enforced disappearances and deaths involving police officers continue to test that promise.
The challenge is no longer simply whether Kenya has established institutions to oversee the police, but whether those institutions consistently deliver accountability when officers are accused of misconduct.
Constitutional promise under pressure
Article 244 of the Constitution requires the National Police Service to strive for the highest standards of professionalism and discipline, prevent corruption, promote transparency and accountability, and comply with constitutional standards on human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The constitutional framework sought to transform policing from a force associated with coercive authority into a service accountable to the public.
The establishment of the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) under the Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act, 2011, was a key component of that framework, providing an independent mechanism for investigating police conduct and recommending appropriate action.
Yet the existence of oversight institutions does not, by itself, establish whether the public is better protected or whether officers accused of wrongdoing are held accountable.
The death of teacher and social media influencer Albert Ojwang in police custody in June 2025 became a significant test of that distinction.
Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja apologised after the National Police Service’s initial account said Ojwang had died after hitting his head against a wall.
“Going by the reports by IPOA, it’s not true that he died by hitting his head on the wall and that’s the report we had from the word go. I tender my apology on behalf of the National Police Service because of that information,” Kanja told Senators in June 2025.
IPOA Vice Chairperson Ann Wanjiku said investigations had established that CCTV footage at the police station had been interfered with.
The case raised questions about the reliability of official accounts, the preservation of evidence and the importance of independent scrutiny when police conduct is in question.
An apology can acknowledge an institutional failure, but public confidence also depends on credible investigations, transparent communication and appropriate action where wrongdoing is established.
The case illustrates the stakes of police accountability, although one high-profile incident cannot, on its own, determine the overall effectiveness of reforms.
What the numbers reveal
Data from human rights institutions provides another measure of the challenges facing Kenya’s accountability framework.
The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR), in an assessment covering December 2024 to December 2025, documented fifty-seven violations of the right to life, including the case of Ojwang.
The commission also recorded 661 complaints involving violations of the right to freedom and security of the person, including arbitrary detention, torture, abductions and enforced disappearances, among them fifteen abduction cases.
The figures underline the scale of reported human rights concerns, although they do not establish that every violation or complaint involved police officers or that every allegation was substantiated.
They nevertheless reinforce the need for institutions to establish the facts, protect victims and witnesses, and ensure that credible evidence receives appropriate attention.
IPOA’s own performance figures illustrate the workload facing the independent oversight system.
In its performance report covering July to December 2025, the authority said it received and documented 2,360 complaints against police, completed 763 investigations and forwarded sixty-three case files to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) for appropriate action.
The figures capture different stages of the accountability process and should not be interpreted as a direct measure of success or failure without additional information about case complexity, pending investigations and subsequent outcomes.
A completed investigation does not necessarily establish misconduct, just as forwarding a file to prosecutors does not mean charges will be brought or a conviction secured.
For a clearer assessment of reform outcomes, the public needs information on how many investigations lead to prosecution recommendations, how many recommendations result in charges, and how cases conclude through judicial or disciplinary processes.
The time taken to resolve cases, the reasons for delays and the remedies available to victims are also important indicators of whether accountability mechanisms are delivering results.
Without comparable data across defined periods, it remains difficult to establish the extent to which reforms have improved outcomes for complainants.
The legacy of command and control
Lawyer Willis Otieno argues that the challenges facing police accountability are rooted partly in the history and culture of policing.
“Kenya inherited a police system built to protect colonial power, control the population and suppress dissent. Independence changed who occupied State House, but for decades the basic command structure remained intact: orders came from the top, while accountability flowed upward rather than outward to wananchi,” he said.
Otieno argues that the 2010 Constitution sought to break with that history but that structural change requires more than new institutions or terminology.
“The 2010 Constitution tried to break with that history by transforming the Police Force into a Police Service, but changing the name was never enough. If the people have no meaningful say over those who command policing in their communities, then ‘orders from above’ will continue to shape how power is exercised on the ground. This is why Kenya needs deeper democratic reform of policing,” he said.
His analysis places the debate beyond the conduct of individual officers and asks whether the institutional culture of policing has changed sufficiently to reflect constitutional requirements.
The constitutional vision requires police officers to protect citizens, uphold the law and respect fundamental rights, while institutions responsible for oversight must be able to scrutinise alleged misconduct independently.
The effectiveness of those safeguards depends not only on their formal existence but also on how consistently they are implemented and whether the public can see the results.
When action falls short
Cases involving alleged police abuse illustrate why administrative measures should not be confused with accountability.
In February 2026, the Police Reforms Working Group criticised the transfer of officers linked to an alleged assault in Nandi Hills.
The group said CCTV footage appeared to show officers entering premises where young men were playing pool and allegedly assaulting them, prompting IPOA to open an investigation while Inspector-General Douglas Kanja directed the Internal Affairs Unit to conduct an inquiry.
“Moving an officer to a different station undermines public confidence,” the group said.
A transfer may change where an officer works, but it does not establish whether misconduct occurred or determine whether criminal or disciplinary action is warranted.
Those questions require investigations and decisions by the institutions legally responsible for determining the facts and taking appropriate action.
There have also been cases in which investigations have progressed to criminal charges.
In February 2026, Police Constable Peter Wamiti Mwangi was charged following an IPOA recommendation over the fatal shooting of George Matheri in Karatina, Nyeri County.
The case demonstrates the importance of examining what happens after an allegation is made, but a charge is not a finding of guilt and should not be presented as a final measure of accountability.
Together, the two cases illustrate why assessments of police reform must consider the full range of outcomes, from administrative decisions and completed investigations to prosecution, disciplinary action and judicial findings.
They also underline the importance of timely updates that allow victims, families and the wider public to understand whether cases are progressing and what decisions have been made.
Has public confidence changed?
The experiences described by Neko and Ngumba point to a persistent concern: citizens may be reluctant to report alleged misconduct if they fear retaliation or doubt that their complaints will be handled fairly.
Their statements are individual accounts rather than a representative measure of public opinion, but they highlight issues that a broader assessment of police reform must address.
The National Police Service, IPOA and other oversight institutions have distinct responsibilities within the accountability framework, and their performance must be assessed against those responsibilities.
The police must demonstrate that allegations are taken seriously and that officers are held to the law, while oversight bodies must investigate within their mandates and communicate appropriately about the progress and outcome of cases.
The ODPP must independently assess evidence referred for prosecution, while courts determine criminal responsibility through fair proceedings.
Assessing whether reforms have changed citizens’ experiences therefore requires more than counting complaints or identifying cases that have attracted public attention.
It requires evidence of whether investigations are conducted independently, whether complainants can participate without intimidation, whether decisions are communicated transparently and whether appropriate remedies follow when violations are established.
It also requires the police service to account for the implementation of reforms and explain what remains unresolved.
Kenya has established constitutional protections and institutions intended to make policing more professional and accountable, but the existence of those safeguards is only one measure of progress.
For citizens who fear reporting misconduct, the decisive question is whether the system can protect their rights and respond credibly when those rights are violated.
The ultimate test of police reform is not simply whether accountability mechanisms exist, but whether they consistently work in practice—and whether Kenyans can see and experience the difference.