Whenever a serious failure occurs inside a public institution in Kenya, responsibility often becomes strangely difficult to locate. Information was supplied by someone else, a subordinate handled the matter, an official document was signed without full knowledge, or an important item disappeared without anyone noticing. The explanation may vary, but the pattern remains familiar. The more powerful the officeholder, the easier it sometimes becomes to say that they did not know.
Ordinary Kenyans are rarely afforded the same generosity when something goes wrong under their control. A licensed firearm holder whose weapon disappeared and later surfaced in criminal hands would face searching questions about storage, reporting and negligence. A junior police officer who signed a false report would likely be suspended while investigators established what happened. In practice, however, public responsibility often appears to weaken as official rank increases.
That inversion of responsibility lies behind the public anger surrounding the death of Albert Ojwang and the questions raised by the recovery of a firearm registered to Court of Appeal Judge Aggrey Muchelule. These cases are not identical, and they should not be treated as though they involve the same legal circumstances. They nevertheless expose a disturbing weakness in Kenya’s public culture, where authority is exercised personally but responsibility is frequently transferred elsewhere.
Albert Ojwang Case and Official Accountability
Albert Ojwang died after being arrested in Homa Bay and transported to Nairobi over allegations linked to social media publications. The National Police Service initially informed the public that he had injured himself after striking his head against the wall of a cell at Nairobi Central Police Station. That explanation was presented with the full authority of the institution and communicated under the name of police spokesperson Muchiri Nyaga.
The account did not survive sustained scrutiny. Postmortem findings indicated serious injuries that were inconsistent with the explanation offered by the police. Investigations later raised questions about assault, interference with surveillance evidence and attempts to conceal what happened inside the station. Several people have since faced murder charges, and the courts must now determine individual criminal responsibility through evidence and due process.
The criminal proceedings, however, do not answer the institutional question that remains before the public. How did the National Police Service release a definitive account of a death in custody before conducting a credible investigation into the circumstances surrounding that death?
A police spokesperson is not merely someone who repeats whatever information reaches the communications office. The spokesperson speaks with the authority of the State, especially when the institution involved controls evidence, detention facilities and the people who witnessed the events under investigation. Citizens therefore have a legitimate expectation that statements concerning deaths in custody will be carefully verified before they are released.
When an official statement is later contradicted by medical evidence, surveillance material or independent investigation, accountability cannot end with the explanation that inaccurate information was supplied. The public deserves to know who prepared the statement, who verified its contents, who authorized its publication and whether any consequences followed after the account collapsed.
This question matters because public communication is itself an exercise of power. An official statement can calm a country, shape media reporting, influence witnesses and establish the first version of events in the public mind. When that statement is false or materially misleading, the harm extends beyond public relations. It damages confidence in the institution responsible for protecting life and enforcing the law.
Justice Muchelule’s Firearm and Duty of Care
The controversy involving Justice Muchelule’s firearm raises a different but related question about responsibility. Reports indicate that a licensed pistol registered to the judge was recovered during investigations involving suspected violent criminals. The judge reportedly informed investigators that he had not known the weapon was missing until the police contacted him.
Investigators must establish how the firearm left his possession and whether any criminal offence occurred. It would be irresponsible to declare guilt before that process is completed. Nevertheless, the absence of proven criminal involvement does not eliminate the need for public and professional accountability.
A firearm license grants a person access to an instrument capable of causing death. The privilege carries obligations concerning safe custody, responsible use and timely reporting when a weapon is lost or stolen. Those obligations apply to every license holder, regardless of professional status or constitutional office.
The reasonable question is therefore not whether Justice Muchelule should be convicted through public commentary. The more immediate question is how a licensed weapon could disappear from secure custody without being noticed until investigators recovered it elsewhere. The public is also entitled to ask when the weapon was last seen, how it was ordinarily stored, whether routine checks were conducted and whether the loss was reported promptly after discovery.
Also Read: Fresh Twist in Dr. Victoria Mutiso Shooting as DCI Makes Preliminary Breakthrough
The standard applied to an ordinary citizen should not become weaker when the license holder is a senior judge. Equality before the law means that prestige cannot reduce the duty of care attached to dangerous property. Judges interpret and enforce laws that impose consequences upon citizens for negligence, carelessness and failure to comply with statutory obligations. They must therefore be prepared to submit themselves to the same exacting standards.
Broader Crisis of Public Accountability
The Ojwang case and the missing firearm controversy reveal a broader Kenyan problem. Senior public officials often appear willing to accept the authority of office without accepting the full burden of explanation that accompanies it. Responsibility becomes divided among departments, advisers, investigators and unnamed subordinates until the public can no longer identify anyone who is answerable.
This is not only a legal problem. It is a failure of public ethics.
Criminal liability requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, but public accountability begins before a criminal conviction is secured. An official may need to step aside while investigations continue, not because guilt has already been established, but because institutional confidence requires visible seriousness. A resignation may sometimes represent acceptance of responsibility rather than an admission of criminal wrongdoing.
Kenya has become accustomed to waiting for prosecution before demanding accountability. That habit creates a dangerously low standard for public office. Many failures will never result in criminal convictions, yet they may still reveal negligence, poor judgment, institutional dishonesty or an inability to discharge public duties responsibly.
Article 10 of the Constitution places integrity, accountability and transparency among the values governing the exercise of public power. Those values do not apply only when courts are involved or when prosecutors have completed investigations. They should shape how officials respond immediately after serious failures occur under their authority.
Also Read: Albert Ojwang’s Death: DPP Charges OCS Talaam and Five Others with Murder
Power Must Carry Responsibility
The principle should remain simple. The greater the power entrusted to a public official, the greater the obligation to know what happens within that sphere of responsibility. A police spokesperson must know whether an official account has been verified. A firearm holder must know where a licensed weapon is kept. An institutional leader must understand what occurred under the authority entrusted to that office.
Public institutions do not lose credibility simply because mistakes occur. They lose credibility when mistakes are concealed, minimized, or explained away until nobody appears responsible. Every unanswered question weakens public trust, while every convenient plea of ignorance makes constitutional accountability seem optional.
Kenya will not overcome impunity by prosecuting only the person who physically commits an offense. Accountability must also travel through the chain of command, custody and communication that allowed the failure to occur. The official who signs must understand what is being communicated, while the person entrusted with a dangerous weapon must know where it is secured.
Power cannot continue carrying privileges while responsibility is left behind. In a constitutional democracy, authority creates a higher duty of care, explanation and accountability. Anyone unwilling to carry that burden should not occupy an office that exercises power over other citizens.
This article was written by George Nyongesa, a lecturer of philosophy and logic at the University of Nairobi and Chuka University.
Follow our WhatsApp Channel and X Account for real-time news updates.
