Court Blocks Police From Pulling Judges’ Security Without JSC Consultation

The High Court has declared unconstitutional the withdrawal of Justice Lawrence Mugambi’s security after he jailed police boss Gilbert Masengeli.

Justice Roselyne Aburili ruled that police had violated the Constitution by disarming and withdrawing the judge’s security detail.

The decision, delivered on August 20, 2026, has implications extending far beyond Justice Mugambi’s individual protection.

It places a constitutional guardrail around police powers and judicial independence in Kenya.

The Flashpoint

The dispute followed a bitter confrontation between Justice Mugambi and Masengeli in September 2024.

The judge had been handling proceedings concerning three men whose alleged abductions had raised serious questions.

They included activist Bob Njagi and brothers Jamil and Aslam Longton, whose whereabouts became central.

Masengeli was repeatedly summoned to explain what the authorities knew about their disappearance.

After repeatedly failing to honour the summonses, Masengeli was convicted of contempt on September 9, 2024.

Justice Mugambi subsequently sentenced him to six months imprisonment on September 13.

The sentence followed seven missed court appearances, according to contemporaneous reports.

Then came the development that would transform the dispute into a constitutional battle.

Within days, police disarmed and withdrew the officers protecting Justice Mugambi.

The timing immediately raised questions about whether the withdrawal was retaliatory.

The Judicial Service Commission condemned the move, describing security as an accrued judicial benefit.

Katiba Institute subsequently moved to court, challenging the withdrawal as unconstitutional and intimidating.

It argued that removing the judge’s protection threatened judicial independence and the rule of law.

Police Defence

The police rejected allegations that Mugambi had been targeted for sentencing Masengeli.

Their explanation was that his security officers had been recalled for mandatory VIP refresher training.

The police said replacement officers were deployed to provide the judge with protection.

They maintained that security officers remained under the Inspector General’s operational command.

They therefore argued that deployment decisions fell within the police command structure established under Article 245.

They also contended that the case had become moot after Mugambi’s security was restored.

Justice Aburili was unconvinced by that explanation.

She found the timing of the alleged training particularly difficult to accept.

The court noted that the supposed training became necessary immediately after Masengeli received an adverse ruling.

“No evidence” showed that the refresher training had been planned before that ruling.

The judge consequently described the explanation as “disingenuous and unconvincing”.

That conclusion became central to the court’s broader finding of retaliation.

Constitutional Breach

The court’s most consequential finding concerned the nature of judicial security itself.

Justice Aburili held that security provided to a judge constitutes an accrued constitutional benefit.

Such protection, she ruled, cannot simply be withdrawn according to administrative whim.

The finding was anchored in Article 160(4), protecting judicial remuneration and benefits from disadvantageous variation.

The court linked that protection directly to decisional and institutional judicial independence.

A judge cannot confidently exercise judicial authority while fearing retaliation from powerful officials.

The court also found that police had violated Article 10, governing constitutional values and public power.

Public officers must exercise their powers reasonably, lawfully, transparently, and in good faith.

Operational independence, Justice Aburili stressed, does not place police beyond constitutional accountability.

The court found that police powers had instead been “weaponised” against a sitting judge.

It described the conduct as a “gross abuse of office” and a breach of public trust.

The implications were therefore institutional rather than merely personal.

If judges fear consequences after ruling against government officials, judicial independence becomes dangerously fragile.

A New Rule

The court separately found violations of Article 47, which guarantees fair administrative action.

Justice Mugambi had received neither prior notice nor reasons before his security was withdrawn.

He was also denied an opportunity to respond before the adverse action occurred.

The court held that even routine administrative decisions must respect constitutional procedural safeguards.

If officers genuinely required training, the judge should have been informed beforehand.

Alternative security arrangements should also have been provided before the existing detail disappeared.

The court further found unfair discrimination under Article 27 of the Constitution.

No evidence showed that other similarly situated judges had suffered comparable security withdrawals.

Justice Aburili therefore concluded that Mugambi had been treated differently without reasonable justification.

The court described the conduct as bordering on “outright victimisation and unfair discrimination”.

It warned that such conduct could intimidate other judges handling sensitive cases involving government officials.

That warning gives the judgement significance beyond the original dispute.

The court ultimately declared the withdrawal of Mugambi’s security unconstitutional.

It also declared that the actions violated Articles 10, 19, 20, 21, 27, 47, 73, 159, 160, 244, and 245.

Most significantly, it prohibited police from withdrawing or disarming a judge’s security without prior JSC consultation.

That order creates an important institutional check against unilateral police action.

The National Police Service Commission was, meanwhile, struck from the petition.

Masengeli Apologised

The court found that operational deployment remained within the Inspector General’s constitutional command.

It declined, however, to declare Masengeli or another respondent unfit for public office.

The court noted Masengeli had subsequently apologised and purged his contempt.

READ ALSO: Court Orders Kenya Railways, State to Pay KSh77 Million Over Tilapia Beach Demolition

Each party was ordered to bear its own costs because the petition served the public interest.

The judgement ultimately redraws an important boundary between police command and judicial independence.

It says police independence cannot become a licence for unchecked administrative power.

More importantly, it establishes that judicial security is not simply another police deployment decision.

It is part of the institutional protection necessary for judges to dispense justice without fear.

PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.