High Court awards ex-JKUAT student Sh8 million for police brutality

The High Court has awarded former JKUAT student Allan Omondi Sh8 million after finding police brutally assaulted and unlawfully detained him in 2019 during student unrest.

In a landmark judgment delivered by Justice Patricia Nyaundi declared that the conduct of National Police Service officers amounted to violation of Omondi's constitutional rights to human dignity and freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

The court further held that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) violated Omondi's right to access justice after recommending diversion for the implicated officers but failing to implement the process for years.

"The violent assault and subsequent arrest and detention of the Petitioner by the officers of the 1st Respondent occasioned a violation of the right to human dignity, freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Articles 28 and 29 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010," Justice Nyaundi ruled.

The judge further declared: "The failure by the 2nd respondent to process the diversion occasioned a violation of the right to access to justice contrary to Article 48 of the Constitution."

The court consequently awarded Omondi Sh8 million in compensation, payable jointly by the Inspector General of Police and the ODPP, in addition to the costs of the petition.

Omondi had moved to court alleging that on November 11, 2019, while he was a student at the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, he was attacked by uniformed police officers as he walked back to his hostel after buying food during student protests over insecurity.

He told the court that the officers beat him with batons, kicked him repeatedly and bundled him into a police vehicle, where they allegedly continued assaulting him while accusing him of belonging to the outlawed Mungiki sect because of wearing dreadlocks.

According to court records, Omondi was later taken to Juja Police Station where the beating allegedly continued before he was locked in a crowded police cell without receiving medical attention despite informing officers that he suffered from a chest condition and required an inhaler.

His mother later secured his release before taking him to hospital for treatment.

The incident sparked public outrage after videos of the assault went viral and were picked up by the local and international media.

The court found that even though the video evidence was not admitted, the evidence before it overwhelmingly established that the assault occurred.

"One fact stands out: the Petitioner's assertion that he was assaulted by police officers on 11 November 2019 is not credibly disputed," Justice Nyaundi stated.

"Even without the admission of electronic footage, the evidentiary trail is unmistakable."

The judge observed that IPOA investigations had corroborated Omondi's account and that the ODPP itself had earlier concluded there was sufficient evidence to sustain criminal charges of assault causing actual bodily harm against the implicated officers before opting for diversion.

However, the court found that the diversion process was never implemented.

"A diversion decision that is never implemented is, in effect, no decision at all, and the resulting vacuum cannot be reconciled with the constitutional obligations that bind the ODPP," the judge ruled.

Justice Nyaundi rejected arguments that Omondi's claim merely amounted to a tort or criminal assault case, saying constitutional protections against abuse by State officers demanded judicial intervention.

"Such conduct, viewed against the standards set by the Constitution and the obligations imposed upon the National Police Service, reflects a departure from the discipline, restraint, and respect for human dignity that the constitutional order demands," he said.

The court also accepted expert medical evidence showing Omondi continues to suffer severe psychological trauma years after the incident, including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, intrusive memories, fear of police officers and diminished self-esteem.

While affirming the constitutional independence of the ODPP, Justice Nyaundi emphasized that prosecutorial discretion cannot shield the office from constitutional accountability where institutional inaction infringes citizens' rights.

"Independence carries constitutional responsibilities, and it does not excuse institutional inertia that undermines the rights of a complainant or leaves a diversion decision suspended in a state of non-implementation," the judge held.