In a bold move that has sparked public outcry and condemnation from civil rights groups, the proposed amendment to Kenya’s Public Order Act has been described by many as a legislative muzzle aimed at silencing the people’s voice.
Tabled under the pretext of maintaining peace and national cohesion, the bill introduces stringent regulations on public assemblies and demonstrations, a move critics warn could reverse decades of hard-won democratic freedoms.
At the heart of the controversy lies Article 37 of the Kenyan Constitution, which guarantees every citizen the right to assemble, demonstrate, and picket peacefully and unarmed. The proposed amendment, however, seeks to insert bureaucratic and punitive layers that make exercising this right nearly impossible.
Organizers would be required to submit detailed plans, including the purpose, route, and estimated number of attendees, with authorities granted sweeping powers to deny permissions on loosely defined grounds such as “threats to public order.”
Human rights organisations, including Amnesty International Kenya, have condemned the bill as unconstitutional, labelling it a tool for suppressing dissent and weakening civic engagement. They argue that in a nation grappling with high youth unemployment, rising cost of living, and widespread corruption, the right to protest is not just constitutional, it is essential.
Opposition politicians have also slammed the bill, terming it a veiled attempt to criminalise political expression and shield the government from accountability.
As history has shown, from the fight for multiparty democracy to recent economic protests, peaceful assemblies have been instrumental in pushing for change in Kenya.
If passed, the bill would mark a dangerous precedent, effectively trading civil liberties for political convenience. In a democratic society, the streets remain a powerful platform for the voiceless. Curtailing that space could echo far beyond the borders of Parliament, chilling civic participation across the nation.
