Kenyan activist Boniface Mwangi’s arrest and subsequent charges have ignited a fierce debate over the government’s use of terrorism laws against protestors, highlighting deep tensions between state security measures and civil liberties in the country.
On July 19, 2025, Mwangi, a prominent voice in Kenya’s civil society, was arrested at his Lukenya home in Machakos County by officers from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI). The arrest was linked to his alleged role in facilitating the violent anti-government protests that swept Nairobi and other major towns on June 25, 2025. Authorities accused him of playing a key logistical and financial role in the demonstrations, which tragically resulted in at least 50 deaths, widespread destruction of public property, and injuries to security personnel.
During the operation, detectives seized multiple electronic devices and documents from Mwangi’s residence, followed by a search at his Mageuzi Hub offices in Nairobi’s Hurlingham area. Items recovered included nine external hard drives, two laptops, cheque books, company seals and stamps, a tear gas canister, and a 7.62mm blank round. The authorities asserted that these materials could serve as evidence of a coordinated attempt to escalate unrest during the protests.
Mwangi was initially charged under Kenya’s Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), a law designed to combat terrorism financing and violent extremism. However, this move sparked immediate backlash from civil society groups and human rights defenders, who accused the government of weaponizing anti-terrorism legislation to criminalize legitimate dissent and peaceful protest.
Hussein Khalid, Executive Director of Vocal Africa, confirmed Mwangi’s arrest and expressed concern, stating, "Boniface Mwangi has been arrested at his home. Together with his lawyers, we are following up to understand the charges he is facing." Mwangi’s wife, Njeri, shared harrowing details on social media during the arrest, revealing that officers referenced terrorism and arson as they confiscated his gadgets and escorted him to DCI Headquarters. "I can't breathe," she wrote, capturing the distress felt by many supporters.
The arrest came amid a broader crackdown on youth-led protests in Kenya, which have unsettled the government in recent weeks. But legal experts quickly condemned the use of terrorism charges against peaceful demonstrators. The Law Society of Kenya (LSK), senior lawyers, and former Chief Justices publicly criticized Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Renson Ingonga for what they described as a deliberate misuse of terrorism laws to silence dissent and instill fear.
LSK President Faith Odhiambo highlighted a disturbing trend since 2024 of “trumped-up charges,” prolonged detention of children, and bail terms designed to keep protesters behind bars even when cases are likely to collapse. “We are giving the Judiciary and the judicial officers the benefit of doubt as they examine the charges,” she said, “but some courts are being forum-shopped to impose very high bail and bond terms, based on charges designed to keep bail terms high.”
Gatanga MP and lawyer Edward Muriu echoed these concerns, warning of the damaging message sent by labeling protesters as terrorists. “When people exercising their rights under Article 37 of the Constitution are labelled terrorists, you might succeed in suppressing them, but the message you send to the world is that Kenya is a country of terrorism and Kenyans are terrorists,” he said. “Investors stay away, tourists don’t come because your security is not guaranteed.”
At the heart of the controversy lies Kenya’s Prevention of Terrorism Act, amended in 2014, which grants the State powers to investigate and prosecute terrorism through bodies like the National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) and the Anti-Terrorism Police Unit (ATPU). However, LSK Deputy President Mwaura Kabata argued that POTA is being misapplied against protestors, noting that offences like burning police stations or destruction of government property should be charged under the Penal Code, not POTA.
“When you ignore the Penal Code and move to POTA, you are trying to fit offences into a law that was not meant for such situations,” Kabata explained. “POTA was never designed for Kenyan protesters. It targets violent groups like Al-Shabaab, ISIS, and Al-Qaeda.” He further pointed out that Section 2 of POTA explicitly exempts demonstrations and protests, acknowledging that looting and destruction can occur even in advanced democracies without being classified as terrorism.
Kabata described the DPP’s use of POTA as “unethical, devoid of moral value, and an extreme abuse of office,” announcing that the LSK would challenge these charges in court. Former Chief Justice David Maraga also condemned the government’s approach, accusing President William Ruto’s administration of weaponizing the criminal justice system to intimidate youth and their families. Maraga called the application of POTA “reckless” and a violation of Kenyans’ constitutional rights to freedom of assembly, expression, and bail.
Senior lawyer Paul Muite added that imposing harsh bail conditions on young protesters charged with terrorism offences violates constitutional protections and urged magistrates to avoid becoming extensions of the executive branch.
Amid this legal and political storm, a surprising development occurred on July 21, 2025. The state withdrew the terrorism charges against Mwangi, opting instead to prosecute him for possession of ammunition without a valid firearm certificate and possession of noxious substances. The revised charges relate to three tear gas canisters and one round of 7.62 x 51mm blank ammunition found during the search at his Mageuzi Hub office.
Hussein Khalid of Vocal Africa criticized the sudden shift, remarking, “How confused this government is. Now they’ve dropped the terrorism charges against Boniface Mwangi. They’re charging him with ‘possession of ammunition.’” Mwangi was expected to be formally charged in court for these lesser firearms offences.
Siaya Governor James Orengo also weighed in, calling the initial terrorism charges “ridiculous” and emphasizing that protected speech and political action should never be criminalized. “By stretch of any tortured legal definition and factual foundation it’s ridiculous to charge Boniface Mwangi and our children who have demonstrated a high level of political consciousness with terrorism,” Orengo said.
This case encapsulates a broader struggle within Kenya’s democracy: balancing national security concerns with the fundamental rights of citizens to protest and express dissent. While the government insists on maintaining order, critics warn that the misuse of anti-terror laws risks undermining democratic freedoms and tarnishing Kenya’s international reputation.
As Mwangi’s case proceeds under the new charges, the spotlight remains firmly on the government’s approach to dissent and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional rights amid a politically charged climate. The unfolding events serve as a critical test of Kenya’s commitment to justice, human rights, and the rule of law.
