Whispers of civil disobedience are being recast as national threats. Now, the ODPP has stepped forward to explain why it’s labelling Gen Z protesters as terrorists.
In a tense statement, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions acknowledged the fierce debate over charges levelled against individuals arrested during the anti-Finance Bill protests on June 25 and July 7. The ODPP maintains that these were not ordinary demonstrations but “coordinated and calculated” attacks targeting key government infrastructure. “The Prevention of Terrorism Act is not being used to gag dissent,” the statement read, “but to prosecute individuals who intended to cripple essential services and instil fear.”
Citing Chief Justice Martha Koome’s remarks after inspecting the gutted Kikuyu Law Courts, the ODPP reminded the public that destruction of courts and public offices during protests “amounted to terrorism” under Sections 2 and 4 of the Act. Koome had said the arson was not just criminal—it was meant to dismantle justice itself.
The timeline shows a swift narrative shift: After the June 26 court burning, top officials began framing the protests in security terms. Within days, some protesters faced terrorism-related charges. Legal activists and rights groups, however, have raised alarm, warning of creeping authoritarianism masked as national security.
The ODPP says it’s open to scrutiny and insists due process is being followed. Every accused has access to legal counsel and is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
Yet questions persist: Is this legal interpretation setting a dangerous precedent? And could today’s prosecutions silence tomorrow’s dissent? For now, the answers remain hidden in courtrooms and corridors of power.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting