News

The hearing of Supreme Court Petition No. E041 of 2025 generated media coverage, reflecting the important role journalists play in keeping long-running public interest litigation in the national conversation. For survivors of conflict-related sexual and gender-based violence, sustained reporting helps ensure that years of waiting for justice do not pass unnoticed. It keeps public attention on the pursuit of accountability, highlights the constitutional issues before the courts, and reminds decision makers that survivors continue to seek recognition, reparations, and an effective remedy. Explore how newspapers, television, and digital media reported on the Supreme Court hearing, bringing national attention to survivors’ voices and the constitutional issues before the Court. https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2026-07-29-state-liable-for-2007-08-pev-police-abuses-court-told https://radiogeneration.co.ke/news/103780/election-violence-survivors-petition-supreme-court-over-delayed-justice https://eastleighvoice.co.ke/news/384554/2007-08-post-election-violence-survivors-return-to-supreme-court-in-fresh-fight-for-justice https://x.com/StandardKenya/status/2082391937630282202/photo/1 https://nation.africa/kenya/news/pev-rape-survivors-seek-equal-compensation-at-supreme-court-5540654 https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2026-07-29-13-years-on-post-election-sexual-violence-survivors-seek-justice https://newsflash.co.ke/survivors-urge-judiciary-to-fast-track-sgbv-constitutional-cases https://www.kenyans.co.ke/news/125714-supreme-court-hear-case-2007-post-election-sexual-violence-after-13-years  

NAIROBI, KENYA – 29th July 2026 — For nearly thirteen years, survivors of post-election sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) have waited for the justice promised by Kenya’s Constitution but persistently delayed. During this prolonged delay, children born as a result of the 2007–2008 post-election sexual violence have grown into adulthood and turned 18, while their mothers have continued pursuing justice through Kenya’s court system. Their return to Kenya’s highest court in Supreme Court Petition No. E041 of 2025 (formerly Constitutional Petition No. 122 of 2013 before the High Court and Civil Appeal No. E645 of 2021 before the Court of Appeal) represents a critical effort to end a pattern that has shaped Kenya’s response to political violence for nearly two decades. Whenever Kenya has recognized, compensated, and restored victims of political violence, survivors of sexual and gender-based violence have repeatedly been left behind. Before the Supreme Court, they highlighted the disparity in the State continuing to recognize some victims of political violence while excluding survivors of sexual and gender-based violence from justice, reparations, and constitutional protection. The appeal, brought by eight individual survivors alongside the Coalition on Violence Against Women (COVAW), the Independent Medico-Legal Unit (IMLU), the Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ Kenya), Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), and other interested partners, including Utu Wetu Trust and the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), challenges the State’s failure to prevent, protect against, investigate, prosecute, and provide effective remedies for widespread sexual violence committed during the 2007–2008 post-election violence. A Pattern of Selective Justice & Differential Treatment More fundamentally, this appeal asks the Supreme Court to determine whether survivors of conflict-related sexual and gender-based violence are entitled to the same constitutional protection, recognition, and reparations already extended to other victims of political violence. Although Kenya has compensated victims through different reparative processes, including those established after the 2007–2008 violence and the 2024–2025 protests, survivors of sexual and gender-based violence have consistently remained outside those frameworks despite suffering some of the gravest violations. The petitioners argue this is unfair and unconstitutional; it denies these survivors the equality, dignity, and access to justice that the Constitution promises every Kenyan. Crucially, while the Court of Appeal previously affirmed State responsibility and upheld the High Court’s award of compensation to four survivor-petitioners (the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th Appellants) who suffered sexual violence perpetrated by State security officers or who had reported the incidents, it drew an arbitrary and discriminatory line against four other survivors (SMM, SKO, DOJ, and FOO). The Court of Appeal subjected these four survivors to differential treatment, denying them compensation solely because they were attacked by civilian militias/non-State actors or failed to formally report the incidents to police at the time. The petitioners submit that creating a hierarchy of victimhood based on who the perpetrator was or whether a traumatized victim could navigate a reporting system during a national crisis is fundamentally unconstitutional. Key Constitutional & Legal Issues Before the Apex Court At the center of this landmark appeal are fundamental constitutional and international law questions: Rejection of a “Hierarchy of Victims” & Differential Treatment: The appeal challenges the arbitrary distinction made between survivors attacked by State agents and those targeted by private/civilian actors. The Court of Appeal erred by affirming liability and damages for state-actor violations while denying remedies to victims of civilian attacks under the pretext of non-reporting or a strict tort negligence test. Every survivor is entitled to equal protection and effective remedies. Human Rights Due Diligence vs. Civil Tort Standard: The petitioners submit that the Court of Appeal erred by applying a narrow civil tort negligence test (requiring proof of individual police duty of care, breach, and causation) rather than international Human Rights Due Diligence Shifting the Burden of Proof: Having established that the State had prior intelligence and constructive notice of impending and widespread SGBV, the burden of proof must shift to the State to demonstrate the proactive steps it took to protect citizens. Failure-to-Report Barrier: Survivors cannot be denied constitutional remedies simply because they could not formally report crimes to police at the height of widespread violence, trauma, insecurity, and police complicity. Oversight and Accountability of IPOA: Crucially, the petitioners challenge the Court of Appeal’s failure to hold the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) accountable. They submit that IPOA possesses a continuing statutory mandate to investigate ongoing, unaddressed historical police misconduct from 2007–2008, and its failure to act leaves scores of survivors without accountability. In Counsel Willis Otieno’s words: “The lack of effective remedies still continues to date. No investigations have ever commenced 13 years later. Constitutional accountability cannot be conditional on expecting traumatized survivors to perform impossible tasks while state security organs stood by.”  The remedies sought are survivor-specific and include compensation, rehabilitation, public acknowledgment, apology, and structural accountability measures. Broader Impact on Access to Justice & Policy Reforms Beyond the courtroom, this appeal speaks to broader questions about access to justice in Kenya. It comes at a time when lawyers across the country have withdrawn from court proceedings to protest delays, growing case backlogs, and barriers to justice. Few cases illustrate that crisis more clearly than this petition. More than thirteen years after survivors first sought constitutional protection, the matter is only now before the Supreme Court. Every year of delay has meant another year without accountability, reparations, or closure for survivors, demonstrating the human cost of delayed justice. The issues before the Court also have implications beyond this appeal. Kenya is currently developing a national compensation framework through the Presidential Working Group on the Establishment of a Framework for the Management of Claims and Compensation chaired by Professor Makau Mutua. That process offers an opportunity to correct decades of exclusion by ensuring survivors of conflict-related sexual and gender-based violence are fully recognized within future reparations programs. A compensation framework that continues to overlook these survivors would only perpetuate the discrimination this appeal seeks to end.   One survivor reflected on the long journey to justice: “I have carried

We, together with fellow victims’ counsel, including representatives of the Law Society of Kenya, Amnesty International Kenya, International Justice Mission, the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, and the Independent Medico Legal Unit, have moved to the High Court in Kisumu on behalf of victims in the Baby Pendo case through Constitutional Petition No. E011 of 2026, accompanied by an application under certificate of urgency and a supporting affidavit. The petition challenges the decision by the director of public prosecutions to decline prosecution of senior police officers who bore command responsibility for the 2017 post-election violence. Our position remains clear. Accountability for violations of this nature cannot be fragmented, reduced, or reassigned. Decisions that result in the exclusion of senior officers while proceeding only against a limited number of junior officers raise serious concerns regarding the application of the principle of command responsibility and the constitutional guarantee of equal protection and accountability before the law. Justice must reflect the full chain of command, including those who planned, authorized, or oversaw operations, and not be confined solely to those at the lowest levels of implementation. Equally, the rights of victims remain central to this process. Victims have a constitutional and statutory right to participate in proceedings that affect them, including the right to be informed, to be heard, and to have their interests meaningfully considered in decisions relating to prosecution. Any decision that alters the scope of charges or excludes categories of responsibility must take into account the impact on victims and their legitimate expectation that the justice process will be comprehensive, inclusive, and responsive to the full extent of harm suffered. We want to take a moment to sincerely thank all the journalists and media outlets that continue to walk this journey of justice with us. Your consistent reporting and interest in the case kept the public informed and also ensured that the struggle for justice for victims of police brutality is not forgotten. Below are some of the stories covered by the media during the hearing. Daily Nation https://nation.africa/kenya/news/baby-pendo-murder-case-brutality-victims-protest-release-of-8-police-commanders-5422132#story The Standard https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/crime-and-justice/article/2001545258/dpp-sued-over-dropped-suspects-in-baby-pendo-case Citizen Digital https://citizen.digital/article/baby-pendos-parents-want-8-senior-police-officers-charged-in-murder-case-n380649 The Star Newspaper  https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2026-04-13-victims-challenge-dpp-over-dropped-charges-in-baby-pendo-case The EastLeigh Voice  https://eastleighvoice.co.ke/news/331367/high-court-case-seeks-reinstatement-of-charges-against-senior-police-officers-in-baby-pendo-killing NTV https://web.facebook.com/watch/?v=1639497247297477 Citizen TV https://web.facebook.com/watch/?v=968523352598420 Utu Wetu Trust stands in solidarity with the victims in affirming that accountability must be complete and that justice must uphold both the rule of law and the rights of those most affected.

The High Court in Kericho will tomorrow deliver a judgment in Constitutional Petition No. 006 of 2024, a case filed against John Chebochok, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, KTDA Holdings, the Tea Board of Kenya, and Tegat Tea Factory, which has drawn national attention due to its intersection of sexual violence, power, and public accountability. This petition challenges decisions and actions that failed to respond adequately to serious allegations, and it places before the court a fundamental question about whether individuals facing grave claims connected to sexual violence should continue to hold public office or positions of influence while institutions remain silent or slow to act. For survivors, this is a test of whether the systems meant to protect dignity and enforce responsibility can function when the person accused is powerful and connected, and whether public bodies understand that neutrality in the face of harm often amounts to protection of the status quo. The ruling will signal how seriously our constitutional values are taken when confronted with allegations of abuse and whether public institutions are prepared to prioritize accountability over convenience, influence, or political calculation. For Utu Wetu, this case is about affirming that sexual violence must trigger action, that public trust cannot be separated from ethical conduct, and that survivors deserve more than sympathy because they deserve justice delivered without delay and without compromise.

Early this year, a virtual session at the Court of Appeal was halted after an intrusion forced the judges to stop the hearing. The session was part of an appeal filed by survivors of the 2007 post-election sexual violence. They have been asking the state to answer for what happened during the conflict period. They were finally in a space where their case could move forward, but the intrusion broke the flow of the day and forced the court to restrict access. Justice Daniel Musinga noted that the intrusion disrupted a process already heavy for the survivors. He said the act disrupted a session meant to address harm that had occurred years earlier. Only lawyers were allowed back into the virtual room once the system was secured. For the survivors, the appeal was part of a long path where they had to explain what happened to them and why the state should carry responsibility. They asked the court to look at the failures to prevent the violence and to look at the gaps in protection and response. But the intrusion during the hearing exposed a new layer of pressure as survivors who faced harm during the conflict faced a second form of harm inside the same process that is meant to bring justice. Their first fight took place in the streets, homes, and shelters where the violence was physical and visible. The fight moved into digital spaces as the court session was disrupted through a screen and the entire process was pushed off balance by someone who stepped in through a virtual door and tried to break a hearing that survivors had waited years to reach, showing that the tools of harm have shifted from the streets and homes where the first violence took place to online spaces where silence is enforced through interference rather than force. The same survivors who struggled to be heard in the physical world stretched themselves once more to hold ground in a space they did not choose and could not control, carrying a double burden that grows heavier each time the system fails to protect even the small steps they have taken toward recognition and justice. At Utu Wetu, we see how harm travels from one space to another and how survivors are forced to fight in two arenas at once while institutions move slowly and offer little protection in either space, leaving them to carry the strain of both the original violence and the new disruptions that meet them when they seek answers.  We cannot allow digital interference to become another gate that survivors must push through on their own, and we cannot stand back while silence shifts from physical intimidation to technological disruption without naming it and confronting it. Utu Wetu will hold this line because the fight for justice must stand in every space where survivors speak, and because the struggle cannot pause each time the tools of harm change shape.

Truth is Justice is also about how long it takes to get there, right?  Recently, we’ve been seeing a repeated and familiar pattern. The Chebochok case, officially known as Constitutional Petition E006 of 2024, was expected to deliver a judgment this July. Survivors were waiting. Advocates were ready. But instead of a decision, we got a new date. The court has now pushed the judgment to 25th September 2025. Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time we’ve had to absorb such news. Take the partial appeal in Petition 122 of 2013, the case involving four survivors who’ve been fighting to hold the state accountable for the 2007/2008 post-election sexual violence. That judgment was expected in April this year. We’re now at the end of July, and there’s still no word and no timeline. Nothing to hold on to except silence. These are not just scheduling issues; when you zoom out, it becomes a clear pattern. Now, we’re not here to attack the courts. That’s not the point. But we won’t pretend this doesn’t matter either. Survivors walk into courtrooms with the full weight of memory, trauma, and truth. They give their statements and face questions. They sit through hearings and do their part. But time and again, they are met with postponements. And with every delay, the burden shifts, the system gets to pause, but survivors do not. They carry the silence. They carry the anticipation. They carry the pain of waiting for a judgment that keeps moving further away. At UTU WETU, we have stood with survivors from the beginning. We were there in court when these petitions were filed. We have walked alongside the survivors through each mention, each hearing, each false start. We have sat in those benches. We have felt the disappointment settle in the room when a judgment is deferred. Survivors have waited long enough. And while they continue to show up, we will continue to show up with them, recording these delays, making noise where we can, and refusing to go quiet. Because justice, especially for those who have waited this long, should not be rescheduled again and again without explanation.

The Coalition Against Sexual Violence (CASV), which includes Utu Wetu as one of its members, has released a new report that brings to light what women workers in Kenya’s tea industry go through each day. This study was conducted to collect stories from women who have experienced harm at work, to understand why these problems persist, and to examine the actions, or lack thereof, of those in charge to prevent them. Many people enjoy a cup of tea without knowing what happens behind the scenes. But for the women who work on tea farms and in tea factories, this cup of tea comes with a cost. Some women have been abused, others face unsafe conditions, and many are not given fair treatment under labor laws. This report explains what is happening, based on real stories from the women themselves. The goal of the study was not just to collect information, but to help bring about change. It examines the systems in place and how they fail to protect women. It also examines the culture in workplaces and communities that enables this harm to persist. Most importantly, it asks whether those responsible, including employers, state agencies, unions, and civil society, have the tools and the will to stop these violations and protect workers. The report is called “Analysis of Women Workers’ Experiences of Rights Violations in Kenya’s Tea Sector.” It includes findings from several regions in Kenya where tea is grown. It covers a range of issues: forced sex, unwanted touching, threats to lose jobs, long hours with no breaks, pay that does not match the work done, and a lack of support when workers report these issues. We’ve officially launched the study report “An Analysis of Women Workers’ Experiences of Rights Violations in Kenya’s Tea Sector.” Behind your tea are stories of exploitation, unsafe work and silence. Here's the link to the report https://t.co/1Zu3rmWXKy#ProtectTeaWorkers pic.twitter.com/rhHnSikwhm — Coalition Against Sexual Violence (@CoalitionAgSV) June 27, 2025 This report is not just about naming the problems, but also provides steps that can be taken to address them. These include better laws, stronger inspections, clear complaint systems that work, and more awareness among both workers and employers. It also calls for support systems that help survivors speak out and get justice. For those who believe that work should be safe and that no one should be harmed for doing their job, this report is an essential read. It asks tea companies to look at how their products are made. It calls on government offices to do their jobs. It also calls on the public to pay attention and speak out. Utu Wetu stands in solidarity with the women who shared their stories in this report. We will continue to advocate for action so that women in the tea sector, as well as in all workplaces, are treated with fairness, safety, and respect. You can read the full report here: Study Report – Women Workers’ Experiences of SEAH in Kenya’s Tea Industry FINAL_2025-06-23_01

Today, on the International Day for the Elimination of Sexual Violence in Conflict, Kenya must come to terms with the fact that the violence which erupted during the 2007 post-election period did not simply end with the cessation of fighting, but instead laid the foundation for a sustained and disturbing pattern of silence, denial, and impunity that continues to shape the relationship between the state and its citizens. During that time, women were subjected to rape and other forms of sexual violence, men were assaulted in ways meant to humiliate and destroy, and families were torn apart as the violence swept through communities already fractured by political tension. From these events emerged Petition 122 of 2013, a case built by survivors who refused to be forgotten, and who dared to ask the state to take responsibility not only for what was done to them, but also for what has never been acknowledged or repaired. Although a court ruling later confirmed that the state had failed to protect some of these survivors, no senior government or police official has been held accountable, and many of the individuals who inflicted the violence remain in service or silence, untouched by justice. In 2017, during the repeat presidential election, this cycle of violence continued in Kisumu, particularly in Nyalenda, where police officers raided homes in response to protests and public unrest. It was during this time that Baby Samantha Pendo, a six-month-old child, was killed in her mother’s arms after officers broke down the door and began attacking everyone inside. Her parents were beaten. Neighbors were assaulted. Women reported being raped by officers who came not to protect, but to punish. These events were not isolated, nor were they chaotic reactions to disorder—they followed a pattern that Kenya has seen before, where law enforcement agencies use moments of political contestation to carry out acts of violence with the assurance that they will not be held to account. Survivors from the Baby Pendo case came forward, gave testimony, and identified those who had harmed them, and yet today, years later, the legal process drags on. At the same time, those most responsible remain in positions of authority, facing no real consequences for their actions. In 2025, a new wave of protests, led largely by young people often referred to as Gen Z, has brought the unresolved legacies of the past back into focus. These young protesters are taking to the streets to demand answers about public debt, taxation, economic inequality, and the cost of living. Still, they are being met with the same tools of repression that were used in 2007 and 2017—live bullets, arbitrary arrests, disappearances, and physical violence. What is striking is not simply that violence is being used again, but that it is being used in the exact locations, against the same communities, with the same methods, as if nothing has been learned, as if the state sees no need to change. These are not just security operations gone wrong. They are deliberate actions taken against unarmed civilians whose only demand is to be heard. The continuity of state violence from one election cycle to another, and now from elections to peaceful protests, suggests that impunity has become embedded in the culture of governance and that institutions meant to protect rights have either collapsed or been compromised. It is within this broader context that UTU WETU continues to walk alongside survivors, those who were violated during the 2007 post-election period, those who were harmed in 2017 during the Baby Pendo operation, and those who are now facing repression for simply raising their voices in protest. We believe that justice must go beyond court rulings and statements of concern. It must involve the actual prosecution of those who planned and executed these acts, the full implementation of court decisions such as the one delivered in Petition 122, and a thorough reform of the institutions that have repeatedly been used as instruments of violence rather than protection. Survivors should not be forced to relive their trauma through endless delays and broken promises. Communities should not have to mourn new victims before old wounds have even begun to heal. The state cannot continue to shift blame, postpone responsibility, or treat each wave of violence as if it has no connection to the one before. Until it is willing to confront the truth of what has happened, to name the individuals responsible, and to act on behalf of those it has failed, the cycle will not end. The names will change. The faces will change. But the pain, the fear, and the silence will remain. On this day, we do not just remember. We demand. We demand that the state recognize the full spectrum of violence that has occurred over time, that it stops treating sexual violence as a footnote in conflict, and that it begins the long, necessary process of restoring trust, dignity, and justice to the people it was meant to serve.