REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. OF 2018 IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 2, 3, 10, 12, 14(1)-(3); 16; 19, 20(1)-(4), 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 47, 159, 165(3), 238, 244, 245, 258 AND 259 OF THE CONSTITUTION IN THE MATTER OF VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO CITIZENSHIP AND ALL OTHER ATTENDANT RIGHTS AND DENIAL OF RIGHT TO FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION -BETWEEN- MIGUNA MIGUNA...PETITIONER -VERSUS- DR FRED OKENGO MATIANG I, CABINET SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR AND COORDINATION OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT...1 ST RESPONDENT RTD MAJOR GORDON KIHALANGWA, DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION........ 2 ND RESPONDENT JOSEPH BOINETT, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE THE NATIONAL POLICE SERVICE. 3 RD RESPONDENT GEORGE KINOTI, DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS...... 4 TH RESPONDENT SAID KIPROTICH, OFFICER IN-CHARGE, THE FLYING SQUAD OF KENYA POLICE SERVICE...5 TH RESPONDENT OFFICER COMMANDING POLICE DIVISION JOMO KENYATTA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT... 6 TH RESPONDENT THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL...7 TH RESPONDENT -AND- 1
KENYA NATIONAL COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS.. 1 ST INTERESTED PARTY PETITION The humble Petition of MIGUNA MIGUNA ( the Petitioner ) whose address of service is care of KHAMINWA & KHAMINWA ADVOCATES, LR NO 1/776/F1, GEORGE PADMORE ROAD OFF MARCUS GARVEY ROAD, P.O. BOX 43758-00100, states as follows: 1. The Petitioner is a Kenyan citizen ordinarily residing in Nairobi City County within the Republic of Kenya, is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya and also practices as a Barrister and a solicitor in Toronto, Canada. The Petitioner presents this petition on his own behalf and in the interest of Kenyans who are discontented with the high levels of impunity in Kenya and in the public interest bearing his responsibility under Articles 3, 10, 22 and 258 of the Constitution to respect, uphold and defend the Constitution. 2. The 1 st Respondent, Dr Fred Matiang i, is the Cabinet Secretary in charge of the Ministry of Interior and Co-ordination of National Government, the Ministry ordinarily responsible for security matters and in-charge of general administration on matters relating to citizenship and immigration. He is sued, first, in his own capacity for violation of the Constitution and the law and as a Cabinet Secretary who has abused his position as a State Officer and engaged in illegalities, specifically by authorising and directing the illegal detention and arrest of the Petitioner, purporting to revoke the citizenship of the Petitioner, issuing illegal declarations designating the Petitioner as a member of a prohibited class and a prohibited immigrant, illegally confiscating the Petitioner s Kenyan passport and eventually ordering the illegal removal of the Petitioner from Kenya. The 1 st Respondent is also sued for being the mastermind of a scheme to defeat the orders of this Court and/or being part of a group of public officials who conspired in contumaciously disregarding the orders of the Court. 3. The 2 nd Respondent, Rtd Major Gordon Kihalangwa, is the Director of Immigration and appointed as such under section 16 of the Kenya 2
Citizens and Foreign Nationals Management Service Act, 2011. He is sued, first, in his own personal capacity for violation of the Constitution and the law and as a person who has abused his position as a Public Officer by conspiring with the 1 st, 3 rd, 4 th, 5 th and 6 th Respondents to engage in illegalities, specifically by administering or directing the administration of the illegal orders of the 1 st Respondent, including through illegal detention and arrest of the Petitioner and purported revocation of the citizenship of the Petitioner, and being an accomplice or co-conspirator in the issuance, by the 1 st Respondent, of illegal declarations designating the Petitioner as a member of a prohibited class and a prohibited immigrant, illegally confiscating the Petitioner s Kenyan passport and authorizing illegal detention of the Petitioner and eventually directing and facilitating the illegal removal of the Petitioner from Kenya. 4. The 3 rd Respondent, Joseph Boinett, is the Inspector General of Police (IG) who is a State Officer and whose office is established under Article 245(1) of the Constitution. He is the head of command for the National Police Service (NPS). He is enjoined in this Petition on his own behalf for, in total abuse of his powers, directing and overseeing illegal detention, arrest of the Petitioner, for contumaciously disregarding Court Orders to produce the Petitioner before the High Court in Nairobi and instead conspiring with the 1 st, 2 nd, 4 th, 5 th and 6 th Respondents to illegally remove the Petitioner from Kenya. He is also sued as the head of the NPS and on behalf of all the NPS Officers under his command who participated in the criminal abduction, and detention of the Petitioner and those who facilitated the removal of the Petitioner from Kenya. 5. The 4 th Respondent, George Kinoti, is the Director of Criminal Investigation (DCI) and is a member of the NPS. He is the head of command at the Directorate of Criminal Investigation. He is enjoined in this Petition on his own behalf for, in total abuse of his powers, directing and overseeing illegal detention, arrest of the Petitioner, for contumaciously disregarding Court Orders to produce the Petitioner before the High Court in Nairobi and instead conspiring with the 1 st, 2 nd, 4 th, and 5 th Respondents to illegally remove the Petitioner from Kenya. He is also sued on behalf of all the NPS Officers under his command who participated in the criminal abduction, and detention of the Petitioner and those who facilitated the removal of the Petitioner from Kenya. 3
6. The 5 th Respondent is Mohammed Said, the Officer In-Charge of the Flying Squad which is a Police Unit of the NPS. He is personally sued because he was the NPS Officer who was personally in charge of the group of men who illegally and forcefully, using a detonator explosive, broke into the Petitioner s home and house, he was personally heading the operation to see the Petitioner moved from one place to another and gave instructions to other NPS officials regarding the detention of the Petitioner, including directing on the cruel and inhumane manner in which he was treated and the conditions under which he should be detained. He was personally present during the transfer of the Petitioner to Kajiado Law Courts and later to the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) and was the one issuing instructions on the cause of action to be taken. He is the one who was directing the police and immigration officials at JKIA on what to do and he personally escorted the Petitioner up to the entrance of the aircraft. He is also the person who organized for and obtained the air ticket that was used to remove the Petitioner from Kenya. 7. The 6 th Respondent is the Officer Commanding Police Division (OCPD) Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) Police Division and is head of command for the NPS at JKIA Police Division in Nairobi City County. He is enjoined in this Petition because he conspired with the 1 st to 4 th Respondent and authorized police officers under his command to participate in the illegal detention and removal of the Petitioner from Kenya on February 6, 2018. 8. The 7 th Respondent is Prof Githu Muigai, and the Attorney General and the State Officer in charge of the office established under Article 156 of the Constitution and is the principal legal adviser to the National Government, under which national security and by extension NPS and department of Immigration falls within the functional competency specified in the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution. He is sued on his own behalf for professional incompetency and for giving illegal advice to the 1 st to 6 th Respondents which caused them to abduct, detain, torture and treat the Petitioner in a cruel and inhumane manner and eventually and illegally purport to revoke his citizenship, to confiscate his passport, designate him as a member of prohibited class and a prohibited immigrant and eventual removal from Kenya. He is the Legal Officer responsible for representing national government in Court. Under Article 156 (6), the 7 th Respondent is 4
obliged to promote, protect and uphold the rule of law and defend the public interest. 9. The 1 st Interested Party is the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) which is a Constitutional Commission established by Article 59 as read together with Article 248 of The Constitution. Its mandate includes at Article 59: a. To promote respect for human rights and develop a culture of human rights in the Republic; b. To promote the protection, and observance of human rights in public and private institutions; and, c. To monitor, investigate and report on the observance of human rights in all spheres of life in the Republic, including observance by the national security organs. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION 10. On 2 nd February, 2018, at about 6.00 am, a group of about thirty four heavily armed men forcefully broke into the Petitioner s home located at 486 Runda Meadows in Runda Estate in Nairobi by using an explosive detonator contrary to the law and without prior legal notification, proper identification or at all or warning to the Petitioner including why they had forced their entry. The Petitioner would only learn later in the day that these invaders were police officers and/or agents of and persons under the control and direction of the 3 rd, 4 th and 5 th Respondents. In fact, for the entire duration the Petitioner was under illegal detention, the 5 th Respondent was in-charge and personally directed what had to be done with the Petitioner. 11. They used explosives to break into the gate to the Petitioner s home and his main door. They destroyed property and ransacked the Petitioner s house, before they abducted him by forcing him into a car. They drove him first to Kiambu Police Station, then moved him to Githunguri Police Station and later to Uplands-Lari Police Station where he was held for most of the time he was in detention. Between Friday February 2, 2017, when he was moved to Uplands-Lari Police Station he was held incommunicado and in deplorable conditions. He was subjected to torture cruel and inhumane treatment for all the period of his detention. He was only given food twice during the entire period of detention, made to stand for very lengthy period, forced to 5
sleep on cold cement floor without provision for any beddings, at times denied access to washroom and was threatened with death by the police officers, including by the 5 th Respondent and was constantly insulted and rebuked by police officers. 12. The Petitioner would finally be moved to Internal Container Depot Police Station before he was taken to Kajiado Law Courts on 6 th February 2018 to answer to charges of: a. Being present and consenting to the administration of an oath to commit a capital offence namely treason contrary to Section 59(a) of the Penal Code; b. Taking part in unlawful assembly contrary to Section 5(II) Of the Public Order Act; and, c. Engaging in organized criminal activity contrary to Section 3(a) as read with Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act No. 6 of 2010. 13. At no time, prior to the invasion of his home and even during the time the police remained in the house and during the entire time of the detention of the police before appearing at the Kajiado Law Courts was the Petitioner informed of the reasons for his detention and or arrest. Prior to, and at the time of invasion of his home, the police never informed the Petitioner of their intention to enter and never requested permission to enter or search his house. In fact the individuals who violently broke and entered his home and house on 2 nd February, 2018, never identified themselves to him or anyone else before or at the time of break and entry and for the period they remained at his home. 14. On 2 nd February, 2018, Justice Wakiaga heard an Application brought by the Petitioner seeking anticipatory bail/release and granted him a Kshs. 50,000.00 cash bail. He ordered that he appear before him on 5 th February 2018. 15. The 3 rd and 4 th Respondents refused to release the Petitioner as ordered although they were duly served with the Order of the Court. This necessitated Justice Kimaru to issue two other Orders to compel the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents to release the Petitioner and eventually finding the two Respondents in contempt of Court. Justice Kimaru issued similar Orders on 6 th February, 2018, specifically requiring that the Petitioner be released to his Court. On 6 th February, 2018 the learned 6
Judge remained in his Chambers until 7.00 pm to ensure that he was available for the Petitioner s release. 16. Earlier in the day on 6 th February, 2018, and despite Justice Kimaru s Orders of 5 th February, 2018 that the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents produce the Petitioner in his Court at 9.00 am, the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents (who were duly served by the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) violated the Orders and together with 5 th Respondent instead drove the Petitioner to Kajiado Law Courts where they presented the abovenamed charges and attempted to have the Petitioner charged. However, the RM at Kajiado ordered the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents to present the Petitioner to the High Court in Nairobi to comply with the Orders of Justice Kimaru. The Honourable E. Mulochi, RM also required that the Petitioner be brought to his Court for plea on 14 th February, 2018. 17. Instead of producing the Petitioner as ordered by the High Court and the Magistrate Court, the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents continued to detain the Petitioner driving him to the Airport and conspiring with the 1 st, 2 nd, 5 th, 6 th and 7 th Respondents, to illegally remove him from Kenya after the 1 st Respondent issued illegal orders ostensibly revoking the citizenship of the Petitioner and classifying him as a prohibited immigrant. At all material times up to the point when the Petitioner was forced by the Officers of the 1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd, 4 th, 5 th and 6 th Respondents (under the active command of the 5 th Respondent) to Board the Royal Dutch Airline Flight KL 0691, the Petitioner remained in the active custody and control of the 1 st to 6 th Respondents. 18. At no time prior to being notified that he was being classified as a prohibited immigrant and his passport confiscated was the Petitioner notified of the intention of the 1 st Respondent to do so. After exiting Kajiado Law Courts on 6 th February, 2018, the Petitioner was denied any contact with Counsel, intermediary or family member. In fact he was, until the time he was forced to board the flight held incommunicado. 19. The Petitioner is a Kenyan citizen by birth born in Magina village on the shores of river Nyando in the Kano Plains, Kisumu County. Both his parents his father Joshua Miguna Jomune and his mother Margaret Sure Miguna (now both deceased) were Kenyan citizens by 7
birth. The Petitioner also holds Canadian citizenship acquired through registration. 20. The Petitioner is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, admitted in 2008 and a Barrister and Solicitor in the Province of Ontario, Canada. He has been of good standing with the Law Society of Kenya and the Law Society of Upper Canada for the respective duration of his admission to the bar. He actively practices as an Advocate in both jurisdictions. 21. The Petitioner owns a home in Runda Estate Nairobi and in Kisumu County. Most of his family members reside in Kenya. 22. The Petitioner served as public officer and specifically as a Permanent Secretary and Constitutional and Legal Adviser to the Grand Coalition government between 2008 and 2012 and undertook many official foreign missions on behalf of the government of Kenya. In 2017, the Petitioner was one of the candidates cleared by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to run for the position of Governor, Nairobi County. The Petitioner was also an aspirant in 2007 general election for Nyando parliamentary seat during the Orange Democratic Party (ODM) primaries. He has voted in all the last three Kenya s general elections. CONSTITUTIONAL/STATUTORY BASIS RELATING TO PETITION & GROUNDS FOR THE PETITION A. The Rule of Law and Good Governance 23. Article 10 of the Constitution establishes rule of law and good governance as some of the principles of governance. These principles are reflected in many parts of the Constitution, including Article 2 which provides that any law or action that is in contravention of the Constitution is void to the extent of the contravention. 24. The rule of law and good governance principles requires that every state organ or officer acts only within the powers conferred on them by and in accordance with the constitution. But the principles also require state organs/officers discharge legal obligation required on them by the Constitution or any other law. Critically the rule of law requires 8
state and public officers to act in accordance with the law, including and without equivocation, following Court orders. 25. The rule of law requires that any action undertaken by a state organ/officer be based on the law. Even where a public officer exercises authority based on discretion, pthat discretion has to be exercised in compliance with the rule of law principles. 26. Under Article 153(4)(a) requires Cabinet Secretaries to act in accordance with this constitution. Article 156(6) states that the Attorney General shall promote, protect and uphold the rule of law and defend the public interest. 27. Specific to the National Police Service, Article 244 of the Constitution provides: 244. The National Police Service shall a. strive for the highest standards of professionalism and discipline among its members; b. prevent corruption and promote and practice transparency and accountability; c. comply with constitutional standards of human rights and fundamental freedoms; d. train staff to the highest possible standards of competence and integrity and to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms and dignity; and e. foster and promote relationships with the broader society. 28. Article 19 concerns the observance of the Bill of Rights and provides: a. The Bill of Rights is an integral part of Kenya s democratic state and is the framework for social, economic and cultural policies. b. The purpose of recognising and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms is to preserve the dignity of individuals and communities and to promote social justice and the realisation of the potential of all human beings. c. The rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights i. belong to each individual and are not granted by the State; ii. do not exclude other rights and fundamental freedoms not in the Bill of Rights, but recognised or conferred by law, 9
iii. except to the extent that they are inconsistent with this Chapter; and are subject only to the limitations contemplated in this Constitution. 29. Article 21(1) is instructive stating that it is a fundamental duty of the State and every State organ to observe, respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights. B. Citizenship and Right to Citizenship 30. The Petitioner was born a Kenyan, of Kenyan parents and is entitled to Kenyan citizenship by birth on account of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. 31. The Petitioner did not lose his constitutional right of citizenship upon acquiring a Canadian Passport as he duly acquired a Kenyan Passport and National Identification Card in accordance with Article 14(5) of the Constitution. 32. Under Article 16 of the Constitution, the Petitioner could not lose his citizenship on account of the Canadian passport. C. Right to fair hearing 33. The Petitioner was arrested and charged before a Court of law and was entitled to a hearing on the charge levelled against him as required by Articles 50(1) and (2) of the Constitution and the right was infringed when the 1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd, 4 th, 5 th and 6 th Respondents unlawfully removed him from the jurisdiction in a purported deportation exercise. VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW 34. TO THE EXTENT THAT the 1 st Respondent working in concert and with the acquiescence of all the other Respondents, purported to cancel the Petitioner s citizenship, revoked and confiscated his passport and designated him as a member of a prohibited class and a prohibited immigrant, and eventually removed him from Kenya, the Respondents and particularly the 1 st Respondent acted in excess of his powers and violated the Petitioner s right to citizenship, his rights to identity documents including a passport, and his right of movement, to enter, 10
and reside anywhere in Kenya as provided for in Articles 12, 14 and 39(3) of the Constitution. 35. TO THE EXTENT THAT the 1 st Respondent working in concert and with the acquiescence of all the other Respondents, purported to cancel the Petitioner s citizenship, revoked and confiscated his passport and designated him as a member of a prohibited class and a prohibited immigrant, without according him to the due process contemplated in the Constitution, Immigration Act and the Fair Administrative Action Act, and particularly the rights contemplated in Articles 47, 48 and 51(1) of the Constitution, the Respondents violated the Petitioner s rights to due process of the law. 36. TO THE EXTENT THAT the Respondents refused to accord the Petitioner his right to counsel ad to give him notice of the intended adverse action that was being taken against him and further failed to provide him with reasons or any articulable reasons for taking the adverse action, the Respondents exacerbated the violations of the Petitioner s right under Article 47s, 48 and 51(1) of the Constitution. 37. TO THE EXTENT THAT the Respondent s detained the Petitioner without justification and without informing him of the reasons of detention, held him in deplorable and inhumane condition, threatened him with death and physical harm, denied him food and basic sanitation services, the Respondents violated all the Petitioner s right protected in Article 29 of the Constitution on freedom and security of the person. 38. TO THE EXTENT THAT the Respondents acted illegally and without due regard of the constitution and the law, the effect of their violation is to deny the Petitioner his right to dignity (Art. 28); freedom and the security of the person (Art. 29); property (Art.40); socio-economic (Art. 43); family (art. 45) rights of a detained person, arrested and persons held in custody (Art.51) and all other rights that flow with the right to citizenship. 39. TO THE EXTENT THAT the Respondents undertook all the enumerated illegal and arbitrary action against the Petitioner in total disregard of numerous Court Orders that required them to present the Petitioner before Courts, the Respondents acted in total violation of the constitutional rule of law and good governance provisions in Article 10 11
and those specific to each of the Respondent, they abused their office and violated the requirements of integrity in Chapter Six of the Constitution and the Public Officers Ethics Act 2003. Moreover, the skewed interpretation of the constitution and the law, failure to follow basic requirements of the law to serve the ends of their political benefactors is also a violation of the rule of law and good governance. In the circumstances Dr Fred Okengo Matiang i, Rtd Major Gordon Kihalangwa, Joseph Boinett, George Kinoti, Mohamed Said and Prof Githu Muigai are unfit to hold public office. 40. TO THE EXTENT THAT the Respondents undertook all the enumerated illegal and arbitrary action against the Petitioner in total disregard of numerous Court Orders that required them to present the Petitioner before Courts, the Respondents acted in total violation of the constitutional rule of law and good governance provisions in Article 10 and those specific to each of the Respondent, they abused their office and violated the requirements of integrity in Chapter Six of the Constitution and the Public Officers Ethics Act 2003 the charge sheet and entire proceedings against the Petitioner before the Chief Magistrates Court at Kajiado Law Courts in Criminal Case No. 174 of 2018, Republic v Miguna Miguna are unconstitutional, unlawful and cannot stand. THEREFORE, THE PETITIONER PRAYS AS FOLLOWS:- a. That a declaration be and is hereby issued that the action of the 1 st Respondent purporting to cancel the citizenship of the Petitioner, revocation and confiscation of his passport and other identity documents and the declaration that he was a member of a prohibited class and a prohibited immigrant and removal from Kenya were made in violation of Articles 12, 14(1)-(2) and 16 of the Constitution and a violation of the Petitioner s right to citizenship including those specified in Article 39(3) of the Constitution and the 1 st Respondent s decision made on 6 th February, 2018 is therefore, unlawful, unconstitutional, invalid and void ab initio. b. That a declaration be and is hereby issued that the action of the 1 st Respondent purporting to cancel the citizenship of the Petitioner, revocation and confiscation of his passport and other identity documents and the declaration that he was a member of a prohibited class and a prohibited immigrant and removal from Kenya were made 12
in violation of Articles 47, 48 and 51(1) of the Constitution because they were done without due regard to the requirements of fair administrative action, access to justice and denied the Petitioner a fair hearing before a before a court or, another independent and impartial tribunal or body and the 1 st Respondent s decision made on 6 th February, 2018 is therefore, unlawful, unconstitutional, invalid and void ab initio. c. That a declaration be and is hereby issued that the manner in which the Respondents conducted themselves resulting to the purported cancellation of the citizenship of the Petitioner, revocation and confiscation of his passport and other identity documents and the declaration that he was a member of a prohibited class and a prohibited immigrant and removal from Kenya were done in violation of the rule of law and in direct contravention of provisions of the constitution that guide each of the named Respondents and was therefore an abuse of office. d. That a declaration be and is hereby issued that detaining the Petitioner without justification and without informing him of the reasons of detention, holding him incommunicado, holding him in deplorable and inhumane conditions, threatening him with death and physical harm, denying him food and basic sanitation services, was a violation of the Petitioner s rights protected in Article 29 of the Constitution on freedom and security of the person. e. That a declaration be and is hereby issued that the action of the Respondents effectively infringes on the Petitioners rights to dignity (Art. 28); property (Art.40); family (Art. 45) rights of a detained person, arrested and persons held in custody (Art.51) and all other rights that flow with the right to citizenship. f. That an Order of certiorari be and is hereby issued removing into this Court and quashing the declaration under section 33 (1) of The Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act 2011 dated 6 th February, 2018 and signed by the 1 st Respondent, indicating that the Petitioner is not a citizen of Kenya and that his presence in Kenya was contrary to national interest. g. That an Order of certiorari be and is hereby issued removing into this Court and quashing the declaration under section 43(1) of The Kenya 13
Citizenship and Immigration Act, 2011 dated 6 th February, 2018 and signed by the 1 st Respondent directing the removal of the Petitioner from Kenya. h. That an Order of certiorari be and is hereby issued removing into this and quashing Gazette Notice No. Vol. CXX No. 15 issued on 30 th January, 2018 by the 1 st Respondent, declaring the National Resistance Movement (NRM) to be a criminal organisation. i. That an Order of certiorari be and is hereby issued removing into this Court and quashing the entire proceedings against the Petitioner before the Chief Magistrates Court at Milimani Law Courts in Miscellaneous Criminal Appln. No. 375 of 2018 County CID Nairobi Area of Criminal Investigation Department v Joshua Miguna Miguna. j. That an Order of certiorari be and is hereby issued removing into this Court and quashing the charge sheet and entire proceedings against the Petitioner before the Chief Magistrates Court at Kajiado Law Courts in Criminal Case No. 174 of 2018, Republic v Miguna Miguna. k. That an Order of mandamus be and is hereby issued compelling the Respondents to return to the Petitioner his Kenyan passport and any other identification documents taken from him, within 14 days of this Order. l. That an Order be and is hereby issued requiring the Respondents to facilitate the re-entry of the Petitioner to Kenya at a date and time of his appointing including by issuing him with necessary travel documents if need be. m. That an Order for exemplary and punitive damages be and is hereby issued against the 1 st to 7 th Respondents jointly and severally, in their individual personal and official capacities, on account of their gross violation of the Petitioner s fundamental freedoms and rights as enumerated in the Petition. n. That a declaration be and is hereby issued that Dr Fred Okengo Matiang i, Rtd Major Gordon Kihalangwa, Joseph Boinett, George Kinoti, Said Kiprotich and Prof Githu Muigai are unfit to hold public 14
office on account of their violations of the Constitution of Kenya, written law and the Petitioner s rights. o. The 1 st to 7 th Respondents be and are hereby directed bear the costs of this Petition jointly and severally, in their individual personal and official capacities. p. That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant such further Order or Orders as may be just and appropriate. DATED at Nairobi this 12 th day of February, 2018 KHAMINWA & KHAMINWA ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONER 15
DRAWN & FILED BY: KHAMINWA & KHAMINWA ADVOCATES LR NO 1/776/F1, GEORGE PADMORE ROAD OFF MARCUS GARVEY ROAD P.O. BOX 43758-00100 TO BE SERVED UPON: 1. DR FRED OKENGO MATING I MINISTRY OF INTERIOR AND CO-ORDINATION OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR HARAMBEE HOUSE, HARAMBEE AVENUE P.O. BOX 30310 00100 2. RTD MAJOR GORDON KIHALANGWA DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION DIRECTORATE OF IMMIGRATION AND REGISTRATION OF PERSONS NYAYO HOUSE, 20 TH FLOOR KENYATTA AVENUE/UHURU HIGHWAY P.O. BOX 30191 00100 3. JOSEPH K. BOINETT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL JOGOO HOUSE A TAIFA ROAD P.O. BOX 44249 00100 16
4. GEORGE KINOTI DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS DIRECTORATE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS MAZINGIRA HOUSE KIAMBU ROAD P. O. BOX 30036 00100 5. SAID KIPROTICH, OFFICE IN-CHARGE THE FLYING SQUAD OF KENYA POLICE SERVICE KENYA POLICE HEADQUARTERS VIGILANCE HOUSE, HARAMBEE AVENUE JOGOO HOUSE A TAIFA ROAD P.O. BOX 30083 6. OFFICER COMMANDING POLICE DIVISION JOMO KENYATTA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 7. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL S CHAMBERS SHERIA HOUSE HARAMBEE AVENUE 8. KENYA NATIONAL COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS CVS PLAZA, 1 ST FLOOR LENANA ROAD P.O. BOX 74359 00200 17