Anger as Passaris seeks to keep public away from Parliament

A year after Gen Z protesters breached Parliament Buildings during the unprecedented “Occupy Parliament” protests sparked by the controversial Finance Bill, 2024, lawmakers are taking extraordinary measures to insulate themselves from public unrest.

The protests of June 2024 saw Parliament stormed for the first time in Kenya’s history, forcing legislators to flee for safety. The memory of that day lingers, shaping a new reality where security is paramount.

Enhanced measures now make it nearly impossible for visitors to access Parliament, a move justified as necessary to keep “undesirable elements” at bay.

On June 25, during renewed Gen Z protests, Parliament was cordoned off with razor wire, a stark visual of the tension between the state and its citizens. Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen, who inspected the fortifications, declared the area secure.

Yet, the National Assembly was forced to adjourn its morning session early that day, unable to meet quorum as many MPs stayed away.

Nairobi Woman Rep Esther Passaris has now proposed the Public Order Amendment Bill, 2025, which has ignited fierce debate. The Bill seeks to regulate protests by designating specific “assembly and demonstration zones” in the capital, cities, and urban areas, as provided under Article 37 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to assemble, demonstrate, and petition.

Passaris’s proposal includes amending the Public Order Act to redefine “public meeting” and “public procession” and introducing new sections to empower the Cabinet Secretary, in consultation with county governments, to designate protest zones.

Crucially, the Bill proposes a 100-meter no-protest zone around Parliament, protected areas, and court buildings. Violators could face a fine of up to Sh100,000, three months’ imprisonment, or both.

The proposal has drawn sharp criticism from Kenyans, who see it as an attempt to curtail their constitutional rights. Social media reactions have been scathing, with many arguing that Parliament, built with taxpayers’ money, is a public institution that should remain accessible.

“We placed you in Parliament; how can you prevent us from accessing it?” one user questioned.

Others demanded that if protests must be confined to designated areas, political campaigns and rallies should face similar restrictions, away from hospitals, schools, and central business districts.

Critics, including People’s Liberation Party leader Martha Karua, have labelled the government’s tactics — such as barricading the State House — as cowardly and oppressive.

“State House belongs to the people of Kenya,” Karua declared, accusing President William Ruto of treating it as private property. “If it’s too hot for you, take a holiday in Karen.”

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) Kenya has also condemned the Bill as unconstitutional, arguing that it violates Article 37, which upholds the right to picket, and Article 28, which guarantees inherent dignity and access to information held by state offices.

Executive Director Eric Mukoya urged Kenyans to resist through public discourse and legal challenges, emphasising that the courts remain a viable avenue to block such laws.

“We must remind those in power that they will not remain there forever,” he said.

The government, however, defends the proposed measures. Murkomen, speaking at the Administration Police Service Potential Instructors’ Course in Nairobi, stressed the need for a comprehensive legal framework to govern protests.

He argued that the law would protect genuine demonstrators while curbing chaos, such as looting or attacks on police stations.  “We want demonstrations escorted by police, ensuring both rights and order,” he said.

President Ruto echoed this sentiment during a meeting with security chiefs at State House, proposing that organisers be required to specify the time, venue and purpose of protests to mitigate risks.

This push is not new. Last year, Mbeere North MP Geoffrey Ruku, now Public Service CS, introduced the Assembly and Demonstration Bill, which sought similar controls but was withdrawn after public outcry.

Passaris's Bill has reignited these concerns, with many questioning whether MPs are driven by fear of public anger.

Lawmakers like Majority Leader Kimani Ichung’wah have called for decorum during protests, condemning the looting and destruction of private businesses during past demonstrations.

“Let us not provoke our officers or business owners who suffer immense losses,” he urged. Mandera East MP Weyton Mohammed supported the bill, arguing that unchecked protests threaten public safety.

“We need to contain demonstrations,” he said, citing incidents at the State House and Parliament. Homa Bay Town MP Peter Kaluma, while backing the need for order, suggested the bill stand independently to avoid perceptions of tampering with the Public Order Act.

 “People are getting away with theft and disorder,” he said, emphasising the need for a clear framework.

Yet, the public remains sceptical. “Are MPs insulating themselves from the people they represent?” one Kenyan asked online. The proposed 100-meter exclusion zone around Parliament has been particularly contentious, seen as a barrier to presenting petitions directly to lawmakers.

Critics argue that such measures undermine the essence of democracy, where public access to representatives is paramount.

As Passaris defended her bill before the National Assembly Committee on Administration and Internal Security, the broader implications were clear.

The fortified walls and proposed laws reflect a growing divide between Kenya’s leaders and its citizens. While the government insists on balancing rights with order, many Kenyans view these moves as attempts to suppress dissent.

 The debate over the Public Order Amendment Bill, 2025, is not just about regulating protests—it’s about the accessibility of democratic institutions and the right of citizens to hold their leaders accountable.