NAIROBI, Kenya, Oct 14 — For a citizen reporting police brutality, unlawful arrest, extortion or a death in custody, filing a complaint may be the first step towards justice, but weeks or months can pass without a clear explanation of what happens next.
Kenya has institutions mandated to investigate police misconduct, oversee disciplinary processes and prosecute criminal offences, yet the journey from reporting an alleged violation to securing accountability can involve several agencies and lengthy investigations.
For victims and their families, the uncertainty can be as troubling as the original complaint: Is the investigation still active, has the file reached prosecutors, and what options remain when an institution stops providing updates?
Human rights defender Hussein Khalid, chief executive of VOCAL Africa, argues that the central challenge facing police reform is no longer the absence of laws or institutions, but their failure to deliver consistent results.
“The biggest challenge facing police reforms in Kenya today is not the absence of laws or institutions, but the failure to implement them effectively,” Khalid says.
He argues that the gap between investigations being announced and meaningful consequences being secured has weakened public confidence in accountability institutions.
“Complaints are lodged, investigations are announced, but arrests, prosecutions and convictions remain inadequate,” he says, warning that the failure to hold officers accountable creates a culture of impunity.
His assessment raises a practical question for citizens and the institutions responsible for accountability: what happens after a complaint is lodged, and what can complainants do when the process stalls?
A complaint is only the beginning
The Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA), established under the Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act, 2011, provides independent civilian oversight of the National Police Service.
Its mandate includes investigating complaints involving police misconduct, particularly deaths and serious injuries resulting from police action or occurring in police custody.
The authority receives complaints through several channels, including visits to its offices, telephone calls, letters, email and its official website.
Once a complaint is received, it is assessed to establish whether it falls within IPOA’s mandate and what action is appropriate, with some cases proceeding to investigation while others may be referred to another institution.
Complaints involving deaths and serious injuries linked to police action are particularly significant within its oversight mandate, while allegations more appropriately handled internally may be referred to the police service’s Internal Affairs Unit (IAU) or another relevant authority.
IPOA can recommend criminal prosecution, disciplinary action, compensation and other remedies, but it does not independently control every stage of the process.
A referral, therefore, should not be mistaken for a resolution, and complainants need to establish which institution is handling their cases, what action it is expected to take and how progress will be communicated.
IPOA says complaints undergo an admissibility and assessment process, with some referred to the IAU or National Police Service Commission (NPSC), depending on jurisdiction, while others proceed to full investigation where sufficient evidence exists.
“Only cases that meet the legal threshold for prosecution are referred to the ODPP,” the authority notes.
What the numbers reveal
IPOA’s reported performance during the second half of 2025 illustrates the scale of the task, with the authority receiving and documenting 2,360 complaints between July and December, completing 763 investigations and forwarding 63 case files to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP).
Its end-term report covering 2018 to 2024 recorded 20,112 complaints received and processed, 12,732 complaints resolved and 4,865 investigations conducted.
The authority also reported that 773 files had been recommended to the ODPP and 30 officers had been convicted during the period.
These figures represent different stages of the accountability process and should not be read as a direct conversion rate from complaints to prosecutions, since cases may follow different routes and investigations can extend across reporting periods.
The figures also do not, on their own, explain why particular complaints remain pending, how long individual cases take or whether every recommendation for further action has been implemented.
For complainants, the more immediate concern is whether their cases are progressing and whether the responsible institutions can account for delays.
From investigation to prosecution
When a complaint proceeds to investigation, evidence becomes central to establishing what happened and whether an officer may have violated the law or police procedures.
Depending on the allegation, investigators may require witness statements, medical records, photographs, video footage, post-mortem reports and other relevant documentation.
In cases involving death or serious injury, preserving evidence and securing witness cooperation can be particularly important, while missing records, untraceable witnesses and delays in obtaining forensic reports can complicate investigations.
IPOA’s published performance reporting also identifies allegations involving police inaction, neglect of duty, unethical practices and abuse of office, each requiring an investigative approach suited to the alleged conduct.
The authority monitors investigations and actions undertaken by the IAU, providing an oversight mechanism for examining how the police service responds to allegations against its own officers.
However, when responsibility is shared between institutions, a complaint can become difficult for the public to track unless agencies communicate clearly about referrals, outstanding evidence and decisions already made.
Where evidence may support criminal charges, an investigation file can be forwarded to the ODPP for review.
Article 157 of the Constitution gives the Director of Public Prosecutions authority to institute criminal proceedings and to direct the Inspector-General of the National Police Service to investigate information relating to an alleged criminal offence.
The ODPP examines investigation files to determine whether the evidence supports prosecution, and further inquiries may be required where material gaps remain or investigations are incomplete.
In February 2026, Director of Public Prosecutions Renson Ingonga attributed delays in prosecuting police misconduct cases partly to slow and incomplete investigations by IPOA and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI).
“The DPP can’t do much” before investigations are completed, Ingonga said, arguing that prosecutors require credible, properly documented evidence before taking a case to court.
Completing an investigation does not automatically result in prosecution, just as forwarding a file to the ODPP does not mean charges have been approved.
A file may require further inquiries, the available evidence may not meet the threshold for prosecution, or a decision may need to be made on the appropriate course of action.
For complainants, the challenge is distinguishing between delays arising from necessary investigative work and avoidable inaction that leaves a case unresolved without an adequate explanation.
What happens when a complaint stalls?
A complaint can stall during initial assessment, while investigators collect evidence, after a file is referred to another institution, during prosecutorial review or while disciplinary recommendations await action.
The appropriate response depends on where the case has stalled and which institution is responsible for the next decision.
The first step is to establish the status of the complaint by retaining the reference number, acknowledgement, date of reporting and any correspondence with the receiving institution.
A written request for an update can ask whether the matter has been admitted for investigation, assigned to an investigator, referred to another agency or concluded.
Where a referral has been made, the complainant should seek clarification on the receiving institution and, where available, the reference number assigned to the file.
The next step is to establish what is causing the delay, including whether investigators are waiting for evidence, witness statements or forensic reports, or whether the file is awaiting a prosecutorial decision or disciplinary action.
Complainants can then escalate the matter through the appropriate channel, asking the responsible institution to explain the delay and clarify what review or escalation mechanism is available.
Where the concern relates to the conduct or handling of a criminal investigation or prosecution, the ODPP provides a channel for complaints about those processes, including reported offences on which no action has been taken.
Any escalation should identify the original complaint, the steps already taken and the specific issue requiring attention.
Where inaction persists, a lawyer or legal aid provider can assess whether further formal action is justified, including judicial review or appropriate constitutional remedies, depending on the facts and the institution involved.
There is no guarantee that escalation will result in charges or a conviction, but it can help establish whether the relevant institution has acted lawfully, fulfilled its obligations and provided a reasoned decision where required.
Importantly, complainants should not have to rely indefinitely on repeated personal visits or informal enquiries to establish whether their cases are still active.
A functioning accountability system should make it possible to obtain meaningful information about a complaint without compromising an investigation or exposing witnesses to risk.
What if a complaint is closed?
A decision to close a complaint, decline prosecution or recommend a different course of action does not necessarily mean that the complainant has no further options.
The first step is to establish the reason for the decision and whether it has been adequately communicated, after which the complainant can seek advice on the options available in the circumstances.
For victims of police brutality, alleged unlawful detention or deaths in custody, an unsatisfactory outcome should not automatically be confused with an absence of further remedies, but neither should every unsuccessful complaint be assumed to prove misconduct.
Backlogs and the accountability gap
The effectiveness of police oversight also depends on staffing, funding, access to evidence and cooperation among relevant agencies.
By May 2026, IPOA had reported a backlog of about 3,600 cases that it was unable to process because of budgetary constraints, while the authority had also sought additional funding to conclude cases and support ongoing court matters.
The reported backlog points to the operational demands facing an institution expected to investigate complaints, inspect police facilities and monitor policing operations across the country.
Delays can have practical consequences, as evidence may become harder to obtain, witnesses may be difficult to trace and victims’ families may be left uncertain about whether their cases remain active.
Resource constraints are therefore an important part of the reform debate, but they do not remove the need for transparency, proper case management and communication with complainants.
Nor can the effectiveness of the system be measured only by how many complaints are received or investigations completed, since it also matters whether cases move forward, recommendations receive appropriate consideration and victims are informed of the outcomes.
The available figures do not establish that every pending case is the result of institutional failure, but they underline the need for more information about case duration, pending investigations, prosecutorial decisions and the implementation of recommendations.
Khalid: Reform must be measured by results
For Khalid, the central test of police reform is whether institutions produce meaningful consequences when officers are implicated in human rights violations.
He says officers suspected of wrongdoing should be investigated promptly and prosecuted where the evidence warrants it, while IPOA and other oversight bodies need sufficient resources and independence to investigate allegations without interference.
Transparency is another priority, with Khalid arguing that members of the public should be able to track complaints, investigations, disciplinary action and prosecutions instead of being left to rely on announcements that an investigation has been initiated.
He also stresses the need to protect complainants, witnesses and victims’ families from intimidation and retaliation, particularly in cases involving serious allegations against serving officers.
These protections matter because accountability depends on people being able to report alleged misconduct, provide evidence and participate in investigations without fear for their safety.
Khalid further calls for structural reforms within the police service, including recruitment, training, promotions and command responsibility that prioritise professionalism, respect for human rights and accountability.
“Justice must not end at the complaints desk,” Khalid says, arguing that it must be reflected in investigations, prosecutions, convictions and meaningful remedies for victims.
His argument places responsibility not only on the institution receiving a complaint but also on every agency expected to act on the evidence, make decisions and implement the law.
Kenya’s police oversight framework provides avenues through which allegations can be reported, investigated and referred for further action, but the existence of these institutions does not, by itself, establish that the system is working effectively.
The real test is whether investigations are completed in a timely manner, evidence is preserved, decisions are explained, recommendations receive appropriate action and victims can access meaningful remedies where violations are established.