The 35th anniversary of Kenya’s Saba Saba Movement was marked by significant unrest as citizens demonstrated in Nairobi and beyond, echoing the protests of July 7, 1990. The original Saba Saba Movement demanded multiparty democracy against the then-autocratic regime. In a similar vein, the recent protests were driven by widespread discontent with the current Kenyan government.
On the anniversary, major roads into Nairobi’s Central Business District were blocked and barricaded by authorities, resulting in tensions escalating as protestors countered this with a navigation app providing real-time updates on police positions and roadblocks. The ensuing confrontations at times turned violent, with the police resorting to teargas, water cannons, and live bullets, which are intended only as last resort measures. The violence resulted in significant casualties, with reports indicating 19 deaths and 44 injuries as of the day’s end; the fatalities included a 14-year-old boy.
Infiltrations by unidentified assailants compounded the chaos, with reports of looting in Nairobi and other locations. Controversy was further fueled by the presence of individuals in unmarked vehicles believed to be plainclothes police. This contravened an April High Court judgment prohibiting such tactics during public assemblies. Dubbed the ‘Death Squard in Subarus,’ these operatives were reportedly shooting directly at protestors.
Allegations of state-sponsored disruption have risen with reports from a Kenyan CNN journalist that a local politician offered bonuses to hired goons who attacked him during his coverage of the events. Pro-government sentiments pushing for this reporter’s arrest have further complicated the situation.
This latest unrest in Kenya is reminiscent of prior protests, such as those against a finance bill in June, characterized by the same sequence of violence and governmental legal challenges. This ongoing tension highlights severe human rights concerns, leading to questions of where citizens can turn when their own government, the supposed duty-bearer, may be seen to disregard their fundamental rights. More detailed coverage can be found on JURIST.