This article was first published in the Daily Nation
What you need to know:
Critics argue that oversight interferes with police operations or undermines command structures.
But this argument misunderstands the difference between operational independence and constitutional accountability.
When Kenyans take to the streets to protest, or when a family waits outside a police station for news of a loved one who was arrested but never returned home, the question of police accountability stops being theoretical. It becomes deeply and painfully human.
Listening to a mother describe how her son vanished after being taken into police custody for a misdemeanour is heart-rending. She isn’t demanding for compensation or public apology, just asking a simple question: who is responsible, and will anyone ever be held to account? The lack of an answer confounds her.
For the many Kenyan families I have encountered through accountability processes, their demand for justice is not an abstract conversation about institutions or legal frameworks. They seek admission of fault, recognition, dignity, and the comfort that the law feels their loss.
Critics argue that oversight interferes with police operations or undermines command structures. But this argument misunderstands the difference between operational independence and constitutional accountability. The former protects the police from improper interference. The latter ensures that policing power is exercised within the limits of the law and respects human rights.
The two are not in competition but complementary pillars of democratic policing. Kenya’s 2010 Constitution envisions a police service that is professional, disciplined and accountable to the people it serves, as expressly set out in Article 244. Independent oversight mechanisms were deliberately established to give effect to this constitutional provision, particularly in light of the country’s history of police misconduct, and public mistrust. Oversight was not designed to weaken the police, but to strengthen legitimacy, professionalism and public trust.
Police Misconduct
Over the years, thousands of Kenyans have turned to oversight institutions to report police misconduct ranging from death in custody and unlawful shooting, to excessive use of force during public protests and police inaction on reported crimes. Behind each complaint lies a human story: a grieving parent, an injured protester, a traumatised witness.
Civil society organisations have long documented these experiences, underscoring the fact that the true cost of unaccountable policing is borne by ordinary citizens. This reality is reflected in the Independent Policing Oversight Authority January–June 2024 Performance Report, which shows that hundreds of complaints continue to be lodged by the public, many involving serious injuries, deaths, or abuse of authority.
Far from signalling hostility towards policing, these figures reveal sustained public reliance on constitutional oversight as a legitimate pathway to justice, accountability, and redress. Such concerns are echoed in Unchecked Injustice, a report by Amnesty International (Kenya), which documents patterns of unlawful killings, excessive use of force, and the persistent failure to hold perpetrators accountable.
The report highlights how delays, institutional resistance and weak follow-through within the justice system have allowed serious violations to recur, reinforcing public mistrust. Independent oversight institutions exist to respond to these realities. Through investigations, inspections of police facilities and recommendations for prosecution or disciplinary action, they translate constitu[1]tional promises into practical accountability. Their work affirms a simple but essential principle: policing power must be exercised lawfully, responsibly and with consequences when it is abused.
Demanding Accountability
My experience of having worked within accountability processes and institutions have taught me that justice is rarely immediate. Investigations take time, and systems move slowly. But what victims consistently seek is not timeliness alone, it is diligence.
They want reassurance that their complaint is heard, examined and handled with the weight it deserves, and that justice is being pursued on their behalf. That, more than anything else, is what accountability promises. Effective policing depends on public trust.
Communities are more willing to report crime, share information and cooperate with law enforcement when they believe police officers will act fairly and that misconduct will not be ignored. Oversight institutions matter because they give the public somewhere to turn to when trust has been broken.
Accountability, however, does not operate in isolation. Oversight bodies face real challenges including limited resources, public mistrust, delayed cooperation, complex investigations, impractical public expectations and wheels of justice that turn rather slowly for accountability to be realised.
For accountability to succeed, it must be understood not as punishment, but as a professional standard intrinsic to policing. This shift requires principled leadership within police institutions, adequate resourcing, independence of oversight bodies and sustained cooperation across the wider justice system. As Kenya continues to consolidate its constitutional democracy, the question is no longer whether police oversight is necessary.
That question was settled by the 2010 Constitution. The more difficult question is how to make it work. Demanding accountability is not anti-policing. It is pro-democracy, pro-profession.