By The Weekly Vision Court Reporter
A High Court judge has ordered the government to ring-fence KSh105 million from the national compensation fund for victims of enforced disappearances, torture and abductions, pending the outcome of a petition challenging their exclusion from payouts already flowing to other categories of victims.
Justice Gregory Mutai’s ruling also bars the Panel of Experts on Compensation of Victims of Human Rights Violations, chaired by Professor Makau Mutua, from imposing a fresh “authentication process” on these cases. The court found that the additional verification step raised serious constitutional concerns and risked locking out at least 35 victims already verified by the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR).
The petitioners, including Gideon Kibet and Ronny Kiplangat, argue that the 35 cases in question had already cleared KNCHR verification and should not face a second layer of scrutiny. The KNCHR had submitted a framework covering 1,101 verified victims across six categories, explicitly including the 35 enforced-disappearance cases, after receiving presidential direction to develop a reparations scheme.
Compensation has since flowed to other categories, fatalities, injuries, sexual violence and economic loss, with the Panel reporting disbursements rising to roughly KSh896 million for 680 victims by early August. Enforced-disappearance claims, however, were held back for further scrutiny that the petitioners, and reportedly the KNCHR itself, regard as exceeding the Panel’s mandate.
Justice Mutai observed that enforced disappearances and abductions “are more deserving of prioritisation than the group entitled moderates and minor injuries,” adding that their exclusion “raises a genuine concern.” The court directed that the KSh105 million be protected while the petition proceeds, with a further mention date set for October.
President William Ruto announced the broader KSh2 billion fund after receiving the KNCHR report in June 2026, framing it at the time as the start of national healing. “A nation does not heal by choosing whose pain matters,” the President said.
Yet the selective prioritisation of certain categories, the introduction of an additional authentication layer for the most serious violations, and the Panel’s insistence that these cases require “intensive investigations” have fuelled accusations of selective justice among victims’ representatives and rights groups.
Professor Mutua has defended the process as rigorous and victim-centred, insisting that claims of stalling are “inaccurate and malicious,” and has promised eventual publication of the list of beneficiaries, with their consent.
The dispute lands just days before 30th August 2026, the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Rights advocates, including Irũngũ Houghton, have used the milestone to press Kenya on how it has treated its own victims over the past year, pointing to documented cases of short- and longer-term disappearances linked to protests and security operations. Kenya signed the Convention years ago but has yet to ratify it or enact domestic legislation criminalising the offence.
For investors and businesses tracking Kenya’s governance and human rights risk profile, the case is a reminder that unresolved state accountability questions carry reputational weight beyond the courtroom. How transparently the KSh2 billion fund is administered, and whether the framework delivers genuine redress rather than further eroding public trust, are likely to remain live questions as the country moves towards the 2027 elections.
