Prominent public interest lawyer and activist Shadrack Wambui has moved to the High Court in Nairobi seeking anticipatory bail, claiming a looming unlawful arrest orchestrated by state security agencies acting on political instructions.
In an urgent application filed at the Kibera Law Courts through his lawyer Danstan Omari, Wambui says he has credible information that police plan to arrest and possibly harm him under the guise of a legitimate investigation related to a peaceful protest he led in Ongata Rongai on June 25.
The application, which invokes various constitutional rights including Articles 47, 49, and 50, states that Wambui also the chairperson of Sheria Mtaani na Shadrack Wambui, a civic advocacy group is being targeted for his vocal public interest litigation and civic activism.
“The planned arrest is a well-orchestrated move to silence the Applicant and cripple his civic engagements,” reads part of the motion. “The tactic of arresting on a Friday is notorious for detaining individuals over the weekend to deny access to legal recourse.”
According to court documents, the demonstration in Ongata Rongai began peacefully but was disrupted by violent goons allegedly hired by unnamed political actors. Wambui narrowly escaped physical harm, including an attempted stabbing.
The following day, the area Member of Parliament made a public statement implying the chaos was sponsored by a person from Mathare widely interpreted as a veiled reference to Wambui, who is a known native and advocate of the Mathare community.
In a supporting affidavit, Wambui maintains that the MP’s comments and the subsequent summons issued by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) are part of a larger plot to politically persecute him.
“I fear that I will be arrested today, Friday, to ensure I am detained unlawfully over the weekend without the possibility of bail or court access,” Wambui states.
Wambui is seeking orders to bar the Directorate of Criminal Investigations and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions from arresting or interfering with his freedom, pending the hearing of the matter.
The court is expected to certify the matter as urgent and determine whether interim protective orders will be granted. Omari argues that failing to act would subject his client to grave injustice, arbitrary detention, and physical danger.
The case has attracted attention from legal and civil rights groups who view it as a test of the judiciary’s willingness to uphold constitutional freedoms amid increasing reports of suppression of dissent.
