Eight dead, more than 400 injured as cops suppress Kenya protests
At least eight people died and 400 were injured during nationwide antigovernment protests in Kenya on Wednesday, a year after deadly demonstrations against a tax bill, the national rights watchdog said.
Thousands of Kenyans took to the streets to commemorate last year's demonstrations, in which more than 60 people died, with police firing teargas and water cannons to disperse them in the capital Nairobi, according to local media and a Reuters witness.
Some protesters clashed with police, and the government-funded Kenya National Commission on Human Rights said late Wednesday that eight deaths had been reported across the country, all 'allegedly from gunshot wounds'.
'More than 400 casualties have been reported, including demonstrators, police officers and journalists,' KNCHR said on its official X account.
The watchdog did not say who had shot the victims, noting heavy police deployment and 'allegations of excessive use of force, including rubber bullets, live ammunition and water cannons, resulting in numerous injuries'.
Kenyan police spokesperson Muchiri Nyaga did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Why do we wear bullet proof vests to cover protests in Kenya? Because police shoot at unarmed people. And sometimes they die.
Dramatic day expertly filmed by @mufabs as always, produced by @IsaacOyombe + photos by @festolang. Can't name Security for, well, security reasons pic.twitter.com/xot7FQkaE5
— Larry Madowo (@LarryMadowo) June 25, 2025
An official at the capital's main Kenyatta National Hospital said the facility had received dozens of wounded people.
The source said '107 admitted, most with gunshot injuries,' referring to rubber bullets and live rounds. He added that no deaths had been reported at KNH.
National electricity provider Kenya Power said one of its security guards was shot dead during the protests while patrolling its headquarters in Nairobi.
Large crowds were seen earlier heading in the direction of State House, the president's official residence, in scenes broadcast by Kenyan channel NTV before it and another broadcaster KTN were pulled off the air after defying an order to stop live broadcasts of the demonstrations.
Both channels resumed broadcasts later on Wednesday after a court in Nairobi suspended the order issued by the Communications Authority of Kenya.
Protesters torched court facilities in Kikuyu town on the outskirts of Nairobi, Citizen TV reported. Flames and thick smoke billowed from the court building in a video posted on the broadcaster's X account.
WATCH | #JKLive with @KoinangeJeff @AyubAbdikadir https://t.co/ynIujJMFMP
— Citizen TV Kenya (@citizentvkenya) June 25, 2025
Isolated clashes were reported in the port city of Mombasa, according to NTV, with protests also in the towns of Kitengela, Kisii, Matuu and Nyeri.
Though last year's protests faded after President William Ruto withdrew proposed tax hikes, public anger has remained over the use of excessive force by security agencies, with fresh demonstrations this month over the death of a blogger in police custody.
Six people, including three police officers, were charged with murder on Tuesday over the killing of 31-year-old blogger and teacher Albert Ojwang. All have pleaded not guilty.
Ojwang's death has become a lightning rod for Kenyans still mourning those who perished at last year's demonstrations, blamed on security forces, against a backdrop of dozens of unexplained disappearances.
'We are fighting for the rights of our fellow youths and Kenyans and the people who died since June 25 ... we want justice,' Lumumba Harmony, a protester, told Reuters in Nairobi.
The unprecedented scenes on Wednesday, showing police firing at protesters as they broke through barriers to enter parliament, created the biggest crisis of Ruto's presidency and sparked alarm among Kenya's international allies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
16 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
US Supreme Court may rule on allowing enforcement of Trump birthright citizenship limits
The administration has made an emergency request for the justices to scale back injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts blocking Trump's directive nationwide. The judges found that Trump's order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a 'green card' holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or 'universal,' injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all 'persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.' The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. In a June 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 24% of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52% opposed it. Among Democrats, 5% supported ending it, with 84% opposed. Among Republicans, 43% supported ending it, with 24% opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has handed Trump some important victories on his immigration policies since he returned to office in January. On Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, it let the administration end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. But the court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. The court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship dispute on May 15. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Trump's order 'reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors.' An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Trump's administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a 'permanent domicile and residence in the United States.' Universal injunctions have been opposed by presidents of both parties – Republican and Democratic – and can prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, instead of just the individual plaintiffs who sued to challenge the policy. Proponents have said they are an efficient check on presidential overreach, and have stymied actions deemed unlawful by presidents of both parties.
TimesLIVE
18 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Jeff Bezos, Lauren Sanchez exchanging wedding vows on island in Venice
'This magical place has gifted us unforgettable memories,' the bride and groom said on their wedding invitation, in which they asked for 'no gifts' and pledged charity donations for three Venetian institutions. Their donations are worth €3m. 'GIFT-WRAPPED' VENICE Businesses have welcomed the glitz and glamour but it is being resisted by a local protest movement whose members resent what they see as Venice being gift-wrapped for ultra-rich outsiders. Bezos is No 4 on Forbes' billionaires list. Giulia Cacopardo, a 28-year-old representative of the 'No Space for Bezos' movement, complained that the needs of ordinary people were being neglected in a city that is a tourist magnet and fast depopulating largely due to the soaring cost of living. Venice's city centre has less than 50,000 residents, compared to almost 100,000 in the late 1970s. 'When you empty a city of its inhabitants, you can turn it into a stage for big events,' Cacopardo told Reuters. "(But) the money that Bezos spends on this wedding does not end up in the pockets of Venetians. The owners of luxury hotels are not Venetians.' Cacopardo was one of 30-40 activists who staged a protest in St Mark's Square on Thursday, chanting 'We are the 99%' as a masked couple posed as bride and groom and one man climbed a pole to unfurl a banner reading 'The 1% ruins the world'. Police intervened, forcibly removing the protesters. The anti-Bezos front is planning a march on Saturday, and their activities have already led authorities to step up security and move the location of Saturday's party to a more secluded part of Venice, the Arsenale former shipyard. But politicians, hoteliers and other Venice residents are happy about the wedding, saying that such events do more to support the local economy than the multitudes of day-trippers who normally overrun the city. 'We are happy and honoured to welcome Jeff Bezos and his consort Lauren Sanchez,' said mayor Luigi Brugnaro, who sent white roses to the bride and a maxi-bottle of Amarone luxury red wine to the groom.
TimesLIVE
21 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
DRC drops demand for immediate Rwandan troop pullout, say sources
Peace deal expected to be signed in Washington on Friday By Congolese negotiators have dropped a demand that Rwandan troops immediately leave eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), paving the way for a US-brokered peace agreement to be signed between the longtime foes on Friday, four sources told Reuters. Rwanda has sent at least 7,000 soldiers over the border, according to analysts and diplomats, in support of the M23 rebels, who seized eastern DRC's two largest cities and lucrative mining areas in a lightning advance earlier this year. Rwanda has long denied providing arms and troops to M23 and says it is acting in self-defence. DRC and Rwandan officials are expected to sign a peace deal in Washington on Friday following a diplomatic push by US President Donald Trump's administration to end years of conflict with roots in Rwanda's 1994 genocide. The agreement also aims to attract Western investment to the two countries' mining sectors, which boast deposits of tantalum, gold, cobalt, copper and lithium, while giving the US access to critical minerals. Sources told Reuters earlier this month that Washington DC was pushing for Rwanda to withdraw its troops before the deal's signing, a pre-condition that was also included in a US-prepared draft authenticated by diplomats. But that timeline was certain to face resistance from Rwanda. Kigali considers DRC-based armed groups an existential threat, particularly the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), which includes remnants of Rwanda's former army and militias that carried out the genocide. Three sources told Reuters that the new version of the agreement aims to obtain the withdrawal of Rwandan troops from eastern DRC over several months, while two of them said the withdrawal would be conditioned on operations against the FDLR. The sources — three diplomats and a DRC official — asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the talks. Rwandan government spokesperson Yolande Makolo told Reuters on Thursday that under the agreement the "lifting of defensive measures in our border area" would be contingent upon the FDLR's "neutralisation". Tina Salama, spokesperson for DRC President Felix Tshisekedi, told Reuters that Kinshasa was intent on securing the "disengagement or total withdrawal" of Rwandan forces from Congolese territory. A state department spokesperson said it did not comment on ongoing diplomatic negotiations. It remains unclear how far the agreement to be signed on Friday will advance beyond a declaration of principles agreed in April. Technical experts from the two countries initialed a draft peace agreement last week, saying it addressed issues related to territorial integrity, "a prohibition of hostilities" and the disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration of non-state armed groups. It also referred to a mechanism agreed as part of an earlier Angolan-backed peace effort to monitor and verify the withdrawal of Rwandan soldiers and DRC military operations targeting the FDLR.
