High Court Awards Ndiang'ui Kinyagia Sh5 Million Over Police Raid

The High Court has awarded blogger and activist Ndiang'ui Kinyagia Sh5 million in damages after finding that his rights were violated during a police raid at his Kinoo home in June 2025.

Justice Patricia Mande ruled that the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) violated Kinyagia's constitutional rights to privacy and property when officers entered and searched his home and seized several items on June 21, 2025.

The court also barred the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions from prosecuting Kinyagia over the investigative process that followed the raid, which the court found to have been unconstitutional.

Court finds violations during police search

The case arose from a police operation at Kinyagia's home in Kinoo, Kiambu County, in June 2025.

The court's findings centred on the manner in which the search was conducted and the seizure of Kinyagia's property.

The ruling has resulted in an award of Sh5 million in damages for the violations of his constitutional rights.

Kinyagia's disappearance triggered court intervention

The court case followed Kinyagia's disappearance from his home on June 22, 2025, shortly after the police operation.

His whereabouts became the subject of public concern and speculation for several days before he resurfaced at the High Court in Nairobi.

At the time, his lawyer, Wahome Thuku, said Kinyagia had temporarily gone into hiding because he feared for his safety after learning that DCI officers were looking for him over unspecified criminal allegations.

Thuku said Kinyagia had contacted a family member from an undisclosed location and was prepared to appear before investigators and the courts provided his safety and security were guaranteed.

The Law Society of Kenya (LSK), citing accounts from Kinyagia's neighbours, said he had allegedly been forcibly taken from his home by suspected security officers travelling in Subaru vehicles. The organisation said the circumstances raised concerns over a possible enforced disappearance and unlawful arrest or detention.

Kinyagia later appeared at court wearing a maroon hooded sweatshirt, a face mask and glasses. His appearance brought an emotional reunion with his family.

Police linked blogger to social media post

Kinyagia's disappearance came amid heightened public concern over reports of abductions involving government critics and activists.

A court subsequently directed the police to produce him or explain his whereabouts. The Directorate of Criminal Investigations had initially denied holding him, with police saying they did not know where he was.

Police spokesperson Amin later said Kinyagia had come to the attention of investigators because of an X account allegedly linked to him.

According to Amin, the account had shared a mock invitation to demonstrations planned to coincide with the anniversary of the deadly protests against the Finance Bill.

The post, shared on June 19, featured Kenya's coat of arms and purported to outline an itinerary that included a march to State House and the swearing-in of a so-called transition council.

Amin described the material at the time as "very, very inflammatory" and said officers had searched Kinyagia's house and taken some of his electronic devices.

He maintained that Kinyagia was not in police custody and urged him to present himself to the DCI.

Court ordered police to account for Kinyagia

The developments prompted the High Court to direct Inspector-General of Police Douglas Kanja to produce Kinyagia or provide a satisfactory explanation for his whereabouts.

Neither Kanja nor the DCI director appeared in court on the Tuesday when the order was issued. Amin subsequently appeared on Thursday, shortly after Kinyagia walked into the courtroom.

The latest ruling has now found that aspects of the investigative process following the raid were unconstitutional and has awarded Kinyagia Sh5 million in damages.

The decision represents a judicial finding on the legality of the police conduct challenged in the case, while the court's orders concerning prosecution prevent the respondents from pursuing criminal proceedings arising from the impugned investigative process.