Kituo Cha Sheria welcomes landmark ruling affirming the rule of law and the dignity of refugees and asylum seekers in Kenya.

The High Court in Nairobi has delivered a landmark judgment protecting the rights of refugees and asylum seekers in Kenya, declaring unlawful a government directive that required them to surrender passports issued by their countries of origin or risk losing their refugee status and facing expulsion.

In its judgment delivered on 28 September 2026, the High Court at Milimani, presided over by Justice Gregory Mutai, ruled that the notices issued by the Department of Refugee Services on 30 September and 24 October 2024 were issued without legal authority and were therefore null and void.

The case, Refugee Legal Networks and Semhar Weldemicahel Haile v State Law Office and Others (HCCHRPET/E596/2024), was filed by Refugee Legal Networks to challenge a directive requiring all refugees and asylum seekers in Kenya to surrender their national passports within 30 days. The notices warned that failure to comply could result in the cancellation of refugee status and subsequent expulsion from Kenya.

The petitioners argued that the directive violated constitutional protections, including the right to human dignity, freedom of movement and fair administrative action. They further maintained that the Refugees Act, 2021, and the Refugees (General) Regulations, 2024, did not empower the Commissioner for Refugee Affairs to compel the surrender of national passports.

Kituo Cha Sheria participated in the proceedings as amicus curiae, or friend of the court, contributing to the broader consideration of the legal and human rights implications of the contested directive alongside other interested parties, including the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, Katiba Institute and The Legal Caravan.

In its determination, the Court found that the Commissioner lacked the legal authority to impose a blanket requirement for passport surrender or threaten the cancellation of refugee status and expulsion for non-compliance. It emphasised that public authorities must exercise their powers within the law and cannot create new obligations without proper legal authority.

The Court also found that the directive violated the right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution and threatened the rights to human dignity and freedom of movement under Articles 28 and 39. It further held that the blanket directive was unreasonable because it failed to distinguish between individual circumstances and was introduced without meaningful public participation or adequate procedural safeguards.

Importantly, the Court clarified that neither the Refugees Act nor the Refugees (General) Regulations requires refugees or asylum seekers to surrender their national passports as a condition for obtaining a Conventional Travel Document.

Consequently, the Court quashed the two notices and prohibited the relevant government authorities from collecting, confiscating or retaining original national passports under the unlawful directive. It further ordered the Department of Refugee Services to return passports collected under the notices within 30 days of the judgment and to file an affidavit of compliance within 45 days.

The judgment does not prevent the government from addressing legitimate concerns relating to refugee documentation, national security or possible misuse of passports. However, any action must comply with the law, follow due process and respect the rights of the individuals concerned.

The ruling reinforces the importance of constitutional safeguards, accountable public administration and access to justice in protecting the rights of marginalised communities. It affirms that refugee protection must be administered within the rule of law, ensuring that legitimate policy concerns do not become grounds for arbitrary action against people seeking safety and protection.

Click to read the full judgement

By Rony Alal

A democracy is only as strong as the space it creates for people to speak, organize, question authority and demand accountability. When that space narrows, it is not only civic actors who are affected. The ability of ordinary people to participate in decisions that shape their lives begins to diminish. Protecting civic space, therefore, is about protecting the very avenues through which people exercise their rights and shape the society they want to live in.

The need to protect this space brought civic actors, human rights defenders, journalists and State institutions together in Makueni County for the 6th Annual Civic Space Protection Summit on 16–17 September 2026, under the theme “Voices Unbowed. Civic Space Protected. Democracy Strengthened.” The summit moved from reflection to resolve, focusing on collective protection, resilience and the future of civic space ahead of the 2027 General Elections.

As Kenya looks towards 2027, the need for a civic environment where people can speak, organise, advocate and hold institutions to account becomes even more significant. The conversations in Makueni explored what it takes to protect that space, not only through laws and institutions, but also through solidarity, resilience and collective action.

For Kituo Cha Sheria, the summit provided an opportunity to contribute to this wider conversation and connect the protection of civic space with its work of advancing legal empowerment, access to justice and constitutional rights.

Kituo’s Executive Director, Dr. Wambua Kituku, joined conversations on the role of Civil Society Organisations and State institutions ahead of the 2027 General Elections, calling for a people’s manifesto for election monitoring and emphasising the importance of organised, citizen-focused civic action in safeguarding electoral accountability and constitutional rights. Dr. Wambua was also part of the session on how CSO leaders can build resilience, exploring how civil society leaders can strengthen their capacity to navigate an increasingly challenging civic environment.

Collective protection was another important thread. Kituo’s Jimmy Sayi and Joy Nasike joined fellow civic space actors in conversations on protecting human rights defenders, journalists and civic actors ahead of the 2027 Elections. The discussions spotlighted the need for stronger solidarity, protection and collective action in safeguarding the space in which civic actors carry out their work.

Beyond these conversations, the summit examined the wider environment for civic action, including civic oversight, collaboration and civic space lawfare. These conversations reflected the reality that protecting civic space requires more than responding when it comes under pressure; it requires building systems, relationships and collective capacity that can sustain it.

Kituo’s contribution also extended to the summit exhibition, where we showcased our work and impact through an exhibition booth. The booth provided an opportunity to highlight our commitment to protecting civic space, advancing legal empowerment and strengthening access to justice, while connecting participants with the work we continue to do with communities.

From Makueni came a clear reminder that civic space is not an abstract idea, it is the ability of citizens to raise concerns, journalists to ask difficult questions, human rights defenders to stand with communities and civil society to demand accountability.

The work of protecting that space, ultimately, belongs to all of us.

By; Rony Alal

The Government’s recent directive targeting foreign nationals engaged in small-scale businesses has raised significant questions about the protection of refugees, asylum seekers and other vulnerable migrants living and working in Kenya.

The controversy began on 2 September 2026 when President William Ruto directed the Government to begin enforcement action against foreigners operating small businesses and engaging in hawking and other small-scale trade. The President said the measures were intended to protect Kenyan traders from unfair competition and directed that enforcement begin the following week. The announcement immediately generated concern among refugee and migrant communities, particularly because many refugees depend on small businesses and self-employment as sources of livelihood.

On 4 September, Kituo Cha Sheria joined 12 other civil society organisations in issuing a joint statement raising concern over the directive and its potential implications for refugees and asylum seekers. The statement warned that indiscriminate implementation could expose vulnerable populations to arbitrary arrest, harassment, extortion, confiscation of property, forced closure of businesses and community violence.

The joint statement pointed to Article 27 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality and equal protection of the law, as well as Articles 28, 29 and 40, which protect dignity, security of the person and property rights. It further cited the Refugees Act, 2021, which provides refugees with the right to engage in gainful employment and business subject to applicable laws. The Act also protects asylum seekers’ right to remain in Kenya while their refugee status is being determined. These protections are particularly important for refugees whose livelihoods depend on economic self-reliance.

Kenya has in recent years pursued policies aimed at moving refugee management beyond humanitarian assistance towards socioeconomic inclusion. The Government’s Shirika Plan, launched in 2025, seeks to integrate refugees into national and county development systems while promoting self-reliance and economic participation. The joint statement noted that the new directive risks undermining these efforts and Kenya’s commitments under the 2023 Global Refugee Forum.

For Kituo Cha Sheria, the directive is closely linked to its longstanding work to protect the rights and livelihoods of refugees and asylum seekers through legal assistance, strategic litigation and policy advocacy. Kituo is involved in High Court Petition No. HCCHR E554/2025, alongside refugee legal networks, the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, the Refugee Consortium of Kenya and other civil society organisations, challenging barriers that refugees face in accessing lawful employment and livelihoods, including burdensome Class M work permit requirements. The case raises a broader question of how Kenya can regulate employment, business and immigration while upholding rights guaranteed to refugees under national and international law.

While the Government has a legitimate mandate to regulate immigration, trade and business, such measures must remain consistent with the Constitution, the Refugees Act and Kenya’s regional and international obligations. Kenya’s immigration framework provides for a Class M permit for refugees seeking to work or engage in trade or business, underscoring the distinction between lawful regulation and blanket exclusion. The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights has similarly called for enforcement involving foreign nationals to be lawful, fair, consistent and non-discriminatory, following petitions from refugee and migrant communities reporting threats, intimidation, discriminatory treatment and online attacks.

Under the 1951 Refugee Convention, Articles 17 and 18 recognise refugees’ rights to participate in lawful economic activity, including wage-earning employment and self-employment in areas such as agriculture, industry, handicrafts and commerce, subject to the applicable legal framework. Kenya is also a State Party to the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, which forms part of the international legal framework for refugee protection in the country.

For Kituo, access to justice is not limited to representation after a violation has occurred. It also involves ensuring that refugees and asylum seekers understand their rights, can access lawful remedies and are able to participate in decisions and legal processes that affect their livelihoods and security. Forcing refugees to abandon their livelihoods without regard to their legal status could push already vulnerable communities into destitution and increase their exposure to exploitation and other forms of harm.

As Kenya continues to balance the protection of local economic opportunities with its obligations to refugees, migrants and regional integration, the unfolding issue highlights the role of law and legal empowerment in ensuring that regulation does not come at the expense of protected rights.

By: Rony Alal

Sixteen years after the promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, the story of Katiba is still a story in motion. It is a story that began long before 27 August 2010; with years of public pressure for political reform, the return to multiparty politics in 1991, constitutional review processes, the Bomas process, the rejection of the 2005 draft, and the crisis that followed the disputed 2007 elections. The 2010 Constitution emerged from that long and difficult journey, was approved by Kenyans in a referendum on 4 August 2010, and was promulgated at Uhuru Park on 27 August.

But Katiba was never meant to be simply a document to be placed on a shelf. Its opening words place sovereignty where it belongs: with the people. Article 1 declares that all sovereign power belongs to the people of Kenya, while Article 2 establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic, binding all persons and State organs. Its promise reaches into everyday life, protecting rights and freedoms, strengthening accountability, establishing checks and balances, creating devolved government and opening greater space for public participation. The Constitution transformed the relationship between the citizen and the State by making government power subject to constitutional limits rather than placing citizens at the mercy of power.

Sixteen years on, however, the real measure of a Constitution is not only what is written in its pages, but what happens when those words meet real life. A right matters when a person can invoke it. Accountability matters when citizens can demand it. Public participation matters when people’s voices shape decisions. And constitutional supremacy matters when institutions, leaders and citizens alike recognise that no office, individual or institution stands above the law.

Se informasjon om doubleu casino app og mobiltilgang.

That responsibility does not belong to the State alone. Civil society organisations have played and continue to play an important role in constitutionalism through civic education, legal empowerment, public interest litigation, human rights defence, policy advocacy, public participation and holding institutions accountable. The Constitution itself provides space for citizens to participate directly or through representatives, while its amendment framework recognises a role for popular initiatives.

In commemoration of #KatibaAt16, Kituo Cha Sheria joined other civil society and justice actors in Nairobi to reflect on 16 years of the 2010 Constitution, the journey that led to its promulgation, and the responsibility to protect its promise of rights, freedoms, accountability and people’s power. Sixteen years on, the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land and a cornerstone of Kenya’s democratic and constitutional order.

Speaking during the reflections, Kituo’s Executive Director, Dr. Wambua Kituku, highlighted the long struggle for constitutional reform that culminated in the 2010 Constitution and called on civil society and all Kenyans to remain active in defending constitutional gains, demanding accountability and safeguarding the rights and freedoms guaranteed by Katiba. Upholding the Constitution, he noted, is a shared responsibility, one that requires citizens, institutions and civil society to understand, use and defend it.

“Defending the sovereignty of our Constitution is paramount. As we defend the Constitution, we must also think of offensive and counter tactics to ensure that its principles are actively protected and upheld.” Wambua Kituku Ph.D, Executive Director, Kituo Cha Sheria

For Kenya to attain a truly just, democratic and accountable society, legal empowerment must remain at the heart of constitutionalism. Citizens need to understand the Constitution, know their rights and responsibilities, and be equipped to use lawful avenues to challenge violations and demand accountability. At a time when concerns over abductions, impunity and disregard for the rule of law continue to test the country’s constitutional order, educating people on Katiba is not just about knowing what the Constitution says, it is about enabling citizens to recognise when constitutional principles are being undermined and to take informed, lawful action to protect them. Respect for the Constitution must therefore be a shared responsibility of citizens, State institutions and civil society, with continuous civic and legal education helping to ensure that the rights, freedoms, accountability and rule of law promised by the 2010 Constitution are lived realities.

As Kenya looks towards the 2027 General Elections, that responsibility becomes even more important. Recent #KatibaAt16 reflections by civil society actors have similarly focused on protecting civic space, strengthening constitutional implementation and ensuring that citizens remain at the heart of democratic life.

Katiba belongs to the people. Its strength cannot depend solely on courts, Parliament, government institutions or civil society. It lives in the citizen who asks questions, the community that participates in public affairs, the journalist who holds power to account, the human rights defender who stands with those whose rights are threatened, and institutions that respect the limits placed upon them.

By: Rony Alal

The Environment and Land Court in Nairobi has issued a conservatory order restraining the implementation of the proposed relocation and upgrading of the Nairobi Animal Orphanage and associated infrastructure project, pending a ruling on preliminary objections in a case filed by Kituo Cha Sheria and JustAct against Bomas of Kenya Limited, the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) and other respondents.

The order, issued on 14 July 2026 by Justice Oscar A. Angote at the Milimani Environment and Land Court, also prohibits any interference with Nairobi National Park pending the court’s ruling. The matter is registered as Environment and Land Court Petition No. E019 of 2026.

The development follows a petition by Kituo Cha Sheria and JustAct challenging the proposed excision of approximately 76 acres of Nairobi National Park for the expansion of the Bomas International Convention Centre. The petitioners argue that the proposed development threatens the park’s ecological integrity, biodiversity and protected wildlife habitats, raising fundamental questions about environmental protection, constitutional accountability and the management of public resources.

Under the court orders, the intended interested parties were admitted to the proceedings to advance legal and constitutional questions relating to the Rights of Nature, ecological integrity, intergenerational equity, biodiversity protection and the interests of future generations. The interested parties were directed to file and serve their submissions on the two preliminary objections within five days, with the ruling scheduled for 30 July 2026.

The conservatory order preserves the status quo as the court considers the preliminary objections. It restrains the respondents from implementing the proposed relocation and upgrading project or interfering with Nairobi National Park in the meantime. The order further warns that disobedience or non-compliance may attract penal consequences.

In the petition, Kituo Cha Sheria and JustAct question the legality of the approvals granted for the proposed project and the adequacy of the environmental assessment and public participation processes. The petitioners contend that the proposed development could lead to the loss of indigenous forest, wildlife habitat and biodiversity within a protected ecosystem that plays a vital role in environmental conservation.

The petition also invokes Articles 42 and 69 of the Constitution of Kenya, which guarantee the right to a clean and healthy environment and impose obligations on the State to protect and conserve the environment, including biodiversity and ecologically sensitive areas, for present and future generations.

Concerns raised in the court filings include whether members of the public and relevant stakeholders had adequate access to project information, including the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment report, and sufficient opportunity to participate meaningfully in decisions that could affect the park. The petitioners further question whether the environmental implications of reducing protected parkland were adequately assessed before the project received approval.

Nairobi National Park is an important conservation area, providing habitat for diverse wildlife on the edge of one of Africa’s major urban centres. Protecting its ecological integrity is therefore central to wider questions about balancing infrastructure development with environmental conservation, public participation and the constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment.

For Kituo Cha Sheria, the case forms part of its continued use of public interest litigation to advance people-centred justice, promote accountability and safeguard constitutional rights. By challenging the proposed development, Kituo seeks to ensure that decisions affecting protected ecosystems and public resources comply with the law and respect the environmental rights of present and future generations.

The conservatory order is an interim measure and does not determine the merits of the petition. The substantive questions concerning the legality of the proposed project and the challenged approvals remain subject to the court proceedings.

As the matter progresses, the case highlights the role of the courts in addressing disputes involving environmental governance, constitutional rights and the protection of Kenya’s natural heritage. The court’s interim intervention ensures that the proposed project remains on hold and Nairobi National Park is protected from interference pending the scheduled ruling.

By: Rony Alal