The Supreme Court is currently deliberating on whether the State can be held accountable for alleged police abuses during the 2007-08 post-election violence (PEV), despite the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) being established only in 2011.
The appeal, brought by victims of the violence, challenges the failure to receive compensation and other remedies for human rights violations committed during that period.
Arguments Presented
- Victims' Representation: Lawyer Willis Otieno, representing the victims, argued that the creation of IPOA was a direct response to the failures and abuses witnessed during the post-election violence. He contended that IPOA’s mandate cannot be narrowly interpreted to exclude victims from effective remedies. Otieno emphasized that the State has failed to investigate and hold police officers accountable for violations, particularly those involving gender-based violence, amounting to ongoing violations of survivors’ rights.
- State's Position: The Attorney General, through lawyer Dan Weche, opposed the appeal. They argued that the 2010 Constitution, under which the petitioners seek redress, cannot be applied retroactively to incidents that occurred before its enactment. The State maintained that the petitioners failed to meet the burden of proof and that relevant legal provisions addressing gender-based violence were already in place at the time.
- Director of Public Prosecutions: Counsel for the DPP urged dismissal of the petition, noting that the petitioners did not report their cases to authorities, which undermines claims of investigative failure.
Next Steps
The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment, indicating it will review all evidence before issuing a ruling on whether the State bears responsibility for the police abuses during the 2007-08 post-election violence.
