Blood money: Will compensation heal a bleeding nation, end police cruelty?

The government’s plan to compensate victims of police brutality without an apology to them as recommended by the taskforce will only intensify and embolden rogue police officers to kill and main more Kenyans because neither the government nor the law enforcers have acknowledged the evils committed and demonstrated remorse, observers say.

They warn government could be paying blood money to the victims of the violence instead of an honest reparation for the loss and damage.

The report by Kenya National Human Rights Commission on reparation of violence victims recommended “a formal public apology to victims of human rights violations, expressly acknowledging State responsibility for the harm documented in this report. The apology should be accompanied by a publicly articulated guarantee of non-repetition, reflecting a commitment to implement the legislative, institutional, and policy reforms
recommended herein.”

On Monday President William Ruto, after receiving the report, acknowledged the need to apologise but the apology is yet to come.

Questions are now being raised over the absence of a direct apology from the Head of State. Critics argue that while compensation may provide material relief, it cannot substitute acknowledgement of harm or acceptance of responsibility.

Unanswered questions

Human rights organisations have also weighed in asking Ruto to publicly apologise to the victims. They have also demanded the expansion of the list from 1,101 victims to be compensated to at least 4,000 victims of earlier human rights violations.

Also, they want the list of victims to be made public and perpetrators of the brutality brought to book.

This is despite welcoming what they called government’s long overdue acknowledgment of abductions, enforced disappearances, brutal shootings, torture, arbitrary arrests and other grave human rights violations committed against peaceful protesters during the June 2024 Gen Z demos.

“As much as this is a first step to a long journey, we are seeking justice because it does not stop at monetary competition,” said Abner Mango, an advocate of some of the victims at Amnesty International offices in Nairobi during a press conference yesterday.

“If you look at the reparation guidelines that were submitted yesterday, public apology was unanimous under all categories. If you look at the guidelines that were presented by the President, public apology does not form part of it and that is why victims are saying well, you have apologised to State openly, please call us and apologise to us.”

Former Attorney General Justin Muturi said the process reflects what he termed political gimmicks, questioning its intent and fairness. “I think this is so much about the politics of the broad-based government, the 10-point agenda, but what are the mechanisms put in place to ensure fairness?”

He questioned why payments were being processed through the Office of the President. “Is it an admission by the government that it is its agencies that committed the atrocities? If so, then somebody must be held accountable.”

Debate is also raging over whether financial settlements, without corresponding criminal accountability, amount to justice or it only entrenches impunity within State institutions that have been found culpable.

At the centre of the discussion is the question of whether compensating victims of protest-related violence using public funds, while alleged perpetrators remain unidentified or unprosecuted, undermines constitutional guarantees of justice and accountability.

Former Law Society of Kenya (LSK) president Nelson Havi challenged the approach, arguing that compensation cannot precede the establishment of liability. “How will police be stopped from killing if all the government does is to compensate victims without making the killers accountable?”

His remarks come as a government-backed report identified about 1,100 victims eligible for compensation over human rights violations linked to police conduct.

The inclusion of at least 35 missing persons in the list has, however, raised fresh questions over whether the State is indirectly acknowledging responsibility for their whereabouts.

Critics say this raises deeper concerns about enforced disappearances and whether compensation is being used to settle cases without revealing the truth on what happened to those individuals.

They, however, noted that victims deserve more than financial payouts, arguing that justice must include prosecution of those who ordered or carried out unlawful acts.

Without such, they warn, compensation risks being perceived as ‘blood money’ that closes cases without addressing systemic abuse.

They further caution that such a framework may create a dangerous precedent where officers implicated in violations operate without fear of personal consequences, knowing that taxpayers, not perpetrators, bear the cost of their actions.

Nearly two year after the June 2024 anti-government protests, families of those killed, injured or missing say they are still waiting for answers, including who authorised the use of force and what disciplinary or criminal action has been taken.

Former University of Nairobi Lecturer Wiberforce Oundo has questioned the legality and structure of the compensation mechanism, arguing that while the funds were properly appropriated, their implementation raises constitutional concerns.

“In public finance architecture, it’s a very simple straightforward matter. This money was passed in the supplementary budget of the 2025 financial year,” Oundo said.

He explained that once appropriated, the funds are assigned to a specific accounting officer responsible for implementation and reporting.

“For this specific matter, the money went to the State Department of Interior and National Administration. That is the accounting officer mandated to ensure compensation is done and reports back to Parliament through the normal auditing process,” he said.

Oundo, however, criticised the use of a compensation panel, terming it unconstitutional and lacking legal basis. “I have avoided making reference to this so-called panel because it’s unconstitutional, it is illegal, it’s amorphous, it adds no value.”

He further questioned the absence of formal legal processes to establish liability before compensation.

“It’s the Interior that ordered the killing, it’s the Interior that is compensating without any formal process, even a court process to justify that indeed this person was killed. Who killed that person?” he asked. “You cannot compensate me without telling me who killed me. You can never achieve justice until truth has been unearthed and established.’’

The debate has also drawn renewed attention to remarks by President Ruto directing police officers to shoot protesters in the leg. Human rights advocates argue that any credible accountability process must examine whether such statements contributed to normalising excessive force.

Lawyer Levi Munyeri described the compensation initiative as politically motivated. “Compensation should follow substantive justice. It is a grave injustice to purport to compensate victims when the killers are still occupying the streets.”

As the country approaches the second anniversary of the June 2024 protests, the compensation debate has evolved into a broader reckoning on justice, accountability and institutional reform.

Some have, however, seen the timing of the reparation report as a destruction of Gen Zs focus ahead of the anniversary. 

For many, the central question remains whether financial payouts can prevent future abuses.

A field report from Kakamega and Nairobi underscores this human cost, showing families still grappling with loss that compensation cannot erase.

For Justus Opango, father to the late Ian Opango is still grieving the lose, calling for the arrest of the police who killed his son. “I wish to hear that he is also suffering in the hands of justice.”

Another parent, Caroline Mutisya, mother to Kyalo Mutisya who was killed by a bullet right outside Parliament on June 25, 2024, recounted that if her son were alive he would be chasing his dreams far away from home. “He had applied to go to the US. By now he would have made strides in his life.”

Caroline said compensation is not enough and that no amount of money can substitute the lose of a child. “They cannot compensate for the loss of my child. Now if they give me the money, will I be eating my son and his dead future?”

For many families affected by the protests, the absence of remorse from the highest office has deepened anger and distrust.

Questions have also emerged over how businesses affected by arson, looting and destruction during the protests will be compensated, and on what basis valuations will be made, if at all.

“What about big businesses that were burned or looted? How will they be compensated and how much?” Havi asked, highlighting what critics describe as gaps in the proposed framework.

The question of how the government deals with lapses in governance, accountability and the handling of state violence, remains unanswered for many. 
Additional reporting by James Wanzala