Amnesty International-Kenya Executive Director Irungu Houghton has resigned from the Panel of Experts on Compensation of Victims of Demonstrations and Public Protests.
In a letter addressed to the Chairperson of the Panel, Prof. Makau Mutua on Friday, January 9, Houghton said his decision was driven by fidelity to the Constitution, the rule of law, and respect for judicial authority.
Houghton said he was formally stepping down with immediate effect following President William Ruto’s decision to extend the panel’s mandate by 180 days, despite a High Court judgment delivered in December 2025.
"I write to formally tender my resignation from the Panel of Experts with immediate effect. My decision follows the President's 5 January 2026 extension of the Panel's mandate for a further 180 days despite the 4 December 2025 ruling of the Kerugoya High Court," he said.
Houghton stated that the High Court ruling fundamentally changed the legal standing of the panel and made its continued operation untenable from a constitutional perspective.
Read More
"The 4 December 2025 judgment, in my considered view, materially alters both the legal basis and institutional legitimacy of the Panel's continued existence. As a constitutionalist, I am obligated to respect judicial determinations and act in a manner that safeguards the integrity of independent institutions," he added.
Houghton warned that continuing to serve under the extended mandate risked legitimising an arrangement that had already been declared unconstitutional and weakening the statutory role of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR).
He also raised concerns about a court application filed in mid-December, saying his name had been improperly included as an appellant without his consent or involvement.
"Continuing to serve on the Panel under these circumstances, risks normalising an arrangement that the Court has expressly found to be unconstitutional and undermines the central role assigned to KNCHR by law. I note that the inclusion of my name as an appellant in the 15 December application for a stay is erroneous, not in good faith and falls short of trite law and the National Values and Principles of Governance (CoK Art. 10(2).
"I suspended my involvement on the panel on 11 September to await the court ruling and did not enter appearance when listed as an interested party, trusting that the High Court would offer a way forward. I was neither consulted nor do I support the 15 December application to stay the court ruling which was only communicated to Panel members for the first time on 8 January 2026," he continued.
Houghton further said the decision to challenge the High Court ruling directly contradicted his publicly stated position, including an opinion article he authored shortly after the judgment.
He distanced himself from the legal challenge and clarified that his resignation should not be seen as endorsement of the panel’s actions.
"The application also contradicts a publicly stated position contained in my 6 December Saturday Standard opinion editorial and shared with the Panel of Experts the same day. In that opinion, I communicated that the Panel should fully comply with the High Court determination that the KNCHR is the constitutionally mandated body to advise the Presidency on compensation for human rights violations.
"I therefore formally disassociate myself from the decision to challenge the 4 December 2025 Kergoya High Court ruling. My resignation should therefore not be construed as an acceptance of, or acquiescence in, your course of action," he further said.
Despite his resignation, Houghton expressed appreciation for the opportunity to engage in efforts aimed at justice and reparations for victims of state violence.
"I remain grateful for the opportunity to explore this avenue for truth, justice and compensation for victims of state violence while expressing their constitutional right to assembly. The victims' families cry for accountability, justice, and reparations has anchored my personal conscience throughout this journey," he stated.
Houghton stressed that constitutional compliance must outweigh political convenience, arguing that the High Court had already provided a lawful path for compensation through the KNCHR.
"However, fidelity to the Constitution, the rule of law, and institutional accountability must take precedence over expediency. Through the KNCHR, the High Court has offered the Presidency a legal and pragmatic way to compensate the affected and restore its integrity before the nation. Persistent pre-emptive litigation places more obstacles before the victims, their families and the Presidency then it removes," he concluded.
Meanwhile, the government has moved to comply with a High Court ruling that affirmed the rights of victims of protests and riots to receive compensation.
In a statement, Mutua said President William Ruto has taken decisive steps to implement the court’s judgment.
"President William Samoei Ruto, in accordance with the High Court Judgement delivered in Kerugoya on December 4, 2025, in Constitutional Petitions Nos. E10, E11, and E14 of 2025, which affirmed the President's unique constitutional role in protecting human rights and facilitating reparations, has implemented the decision through Special Gazette Notice No. 259 dated January 5, 2025. This action demonstrates the President's strong commitment to the rule of law, constitutionalism, and respecting the authority and mandate of the Judiciary," he said.
Mutua noted that administrative measures are already underway to operationalize the judgment, ensuring that compensation is handled properly.
"And in keeping with the Court's directions, the necessary Administrative and Procedural steps are being undertaken to operationalize the Judgement. These measures are intended to ensure that the compensation process for protest victims is conducted in a transparent, fair, and accountable manner, and is fully guided by established legal and institutional frameworks," he added.
Mutua further clarified that while the government is taking steps to comply, it has also filed an appeal to clarify broader legal questions arising from the ruling.
"Concurrently, and strictly in keeping with established judicial principles and practice that allow for appellate review, and in recognition of the significant public interest involved, an Appeal has been filed to seek clarity on the larger legal issues arising from the judgment," he explained.
At the same time, Mutua reassured the public that the appeal will not interfere with the ongoing compliance process.
"The filing of the appeal does not suspend, delay, or negate compliance with the existing Court order. Rather, it is intended to enable the Judiciary to further pronounce itself on the principles involved, in the interest of clarity and the orderly development of jurisprudence," the statement concluded.
