Retired Chief Justice David Maraga Faces Security Withdrawal After Protests
On June 25, retired Chief Justice David Maraga made headlines as he joined protests in Nairobi, calling for the immediate reinstatement of his police guards, a move that has stirred both support and controversy. His participation in the rallies raises important questions about the nature of police protection in a democratic society, especially for public figures who have dedicated their lives to upholding justice and the rule of law.
Maraga, who has not only served as a legal stalwart but also a beacon of integrity, voiced his concerns after the police officers tasked with his security were recalled without any prior notice. This abrupt action came just a day after he had marched alongside grieving families and youth, all united in their longing for justice for those who lost their lives or went missing during the unrest of the previous year.
“The work of the police should be to protect the people, not disrupt peaceful protests,” Maraga expressed passionately while addressing a crowd gathered outside the Nation Centre. It was a heart-rending moment—a retired chief justice, teargassed along the bustling streets of Kimathi, stood firm in his resolve, reminding attendees of their rightful place in a democratic society.
“I can testify that no one attempted to destroy property. We were peaceful,” he remarked, vehemently refuting the allegations that have been leveled against the protestors. Perhaps it’s a reminder that the loudest voices often belong to those who insist on amplifying the chaos, rather than the calm resolve that many protesters demonstrate. Could it be that the narrative of violence is often sensationalized to divert attention from the genuine grievances of citizens?
Reflecting on the events that unfolded, Maraga took to social media, stating, “We strongly condemn the use of state violence against grieving families and peaceful protestors. The flagrant violation of the Constitution and human rights must stop.” His commitment to civil liberties is commendable, echoing the necessity of accountability within the governing bodies.
In his account, Maraga explained that one officer had been asked to report for a routine firearm register entry only to suddenly receive instructions regarding training. “The following day, I was informed that the rest of the officers had been asked to report to their stations without any further information,” he detailed, portraying an unsettling contrast between his past experiences and the present state of bureaucratic opacity.
Under the Retirement Benefits (Deputy President and Designated State Officers) Act, retired chief justices are entitled to police protection and drivers, a provision Maraga emphasized with a sense of loss. “I have enjoyed the services of the officers for almost five years now uninterrupted,” he noted, which leads us to ponder: What message does the withdrawal of security convey about the state’s commitment to protecting its former leaders?
Maraga echoed a belief that the sudden redirection of his security arrangements is directly linked to his vocal criticism of police leadership and his calls for action concerning the death of Albert Owang, a case that has caused outrage across the nation. “I wish to remind the leadership of the police and the Ministry of Interior and National Administration that the security arrangements and other facilitations are benefits guaranteed under the Constitution and the law,” he insisted, emphasizing the need for law enforcement to serve the public equitably.
The political landscape became even more tense when National Assembly Deputy Speaker Gladys Shollei publicly criticized Maraga. In a vehement address, she accused him of exacerbating civil unrest while enjoying the benefits of his government pension. “Shame on you, Chief Justice Maraga. You’re currently on a pension paid by the government. They pay for your cars, they pay for your gardener, they pay for your cook, and then you go to the streets to demonstrate and mislead our children to destroy people’s properties,” Shollei declared.
As this discourse continues, it becomes apparent that the lines between civic duty and personal gain can often become blurred. Maraga’s participation in the protests was labeled by Shollei as irresponsible, accusing him of turning peaceful demonstrations into chaos and destruction. But isn’t it essential for public figures, particularly those who once held seats of power, to stand up for what they believe is right? Can engagement with the public, even in the form of protests, be a misguided demonstration of entitlement or a necessary stance for justice?
The unfolding situation involving Chief Justice David Maraga highlights complexities at the intersection of law, politics, and civil rights. As citizens witness these events, it is crucial to reflect: How do authorities justify such a withdrawal of security? And what does it say about our collective responsibility to support truth and transparency in governance?
