REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI

CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 2, 3, 10, 12, 14(1)-(3); 16; 19, 20(1)-(4),

21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 47, 159, 165(3), 238, 244, 245, 258 AND 259 OF THE
CONSTITUTION

IN THE MATTER OF VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO CITIZENSHIP

AND ALL OTHER ATTENDANT RIGHTS AND DENIAL OF RIGHT
TO FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

-BETWEEN-

MIGUNA MIGUNA……............................................................PETITIONER

-VERSUS-

DR FRED OKENGO MATIANG’I, CABINET SECRETARY,

MINISTRY OF INTERIOR AND COORDINATION OF
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT…………….…………..1ST RESPONDENT

RTD MAJOR GORDON KIHALANGWA, DIRECTOR

OF IMMIGRATION ……………………...…..….….. 2ND RESPONDENT

JOSEPH BOINETT, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF

POLICE THE NATIONAL POLICE SERVICE….…3RD RESPONDENT

GEORGE KINOTI, DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL

INVESTIGATIONS ……..…………..…………..……4TH RESPONDENT

SAID KIPROTICH, OFFICER IN-CHARGE, THE FLYING

SQUAD OF KENYA POLICE SERVICE………..….5TH RESPONDENT

OFFICER COMMANDING POLICE DIVISION – JOMO KENYATTA

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT …………….……..…6TH RESPONDENT

THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL........7TH RESPONDENT

-AND-

1

KENYA NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
HUMAN RIGHTS …..…………………………1ST INTERESTED PARTY

PETITION

The humble Petition of MIGUNA MIGUNA (“the Petitioner”) whose

address of service is care of KHAMINWA & KHAMINWA
ADVOCATES, LR NO 1/776/F1, GEORGE PADMORE ROAD OFF
MARCUS GARVEY ROAD, P.O. BOX 43758-00100 NAIROBI, states as
follows:

1. The Petitioner is a Kenyan citizen ordinarily residing in Nairobi City

County within the Republic of Kenya, is an Advocate of the High
Court of Kenya and also practices as a Barrister and a solicitor in
Toronto, Canada. The Petitioner presents this petition on his own
behalf and in the interest of Kenyans who are discontented with the
high levels of impunity in Kenya and in the public interest bearing his
responsibility under Articles 3, 10, 22 and 258 of the Constitution to
respect, uphold and defend the Constitution.

2. The 1st Respondent, Dr Fred Matiang’i, is the Cabinet Secretary in

charge of the Ministry of Interior and Co-ordination of National
Government, the Ministry ordinarily responsible for security matters
and in-charge of general administration on matters relating to
citizenship and immigration. He is sued, first, in his own capacity for
violation of the Constitution and the law and as a Cabinet Secretary
who has abused his position as a State Officer and engaged in
illegalities, specifically by authorising and directing the illegal
detention and arrest of the Petitioner, purporting to revoke the
citizenship of the Petitioner, issuing illegal declarations designating the
Petitioner as a member of a prohibited class and a prohibited
immigrant, illegally confiscating the Petitioner’s Kenyan passport and
eventually ordering the illegal removal of the Petitioner from Kenya.
The 1st Respondent is also sued for being the mastermind of a scheme
to defeat the orders of this Court and/or being part of a group of
public officials who conspired in contumaciously disregarding the
orders of the Court.

3. The 2nd Respondent, Rtd Major Gordon Kihalangwa, is the Director of

Immigration and appointed as such under section 16 of the Kenya

2

 Citizens and Foreign Nationals Management Service Act, 2011. He is
sued, first, in his own personal capacity for violation of the
Constitution and the law and as a person who has abused his position
as a Public Officer by conspiring with the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th
Respondents to engage in illegalities, specifically by administering or
directing the administration of the illegal orders of the 1st Respondent,
including through illegal detention and arrest of the Petitioner and
purported revocation of the citizenship of the Petitioner, and being an
accomplice or co-conspirator in the issuance, by the 1st Respondent, of
illegal declarations designating the Petitioner as a member of a
prohibited class and a prohibited immigrant, illegally confiscating the
Petitioner’s Kenyan passport and authorizing illegal detention of the
Petitioner and eventually directing and facilitating the illegal removal
of the Petitioner from Kenya.

4. The 3rd Respondent, Joseph Boinett, is the Inspector General of Police

(IG) who is a State Officer and whose office is established under
Article 245(1) of the Constitution. He is the head of command for the
National Police Service (NPS). He is enjoined in this Petition on his
own behalf for, in total abuse of his powers, directing and overseeing
illegal detention, arrest of the Petitioner, for contumaciously
disregarding Court Orders to produce the Petitioner before the High
Court in Nairobi and instead conspiring with the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th
Respondents to illegally remove the Petitioner from Kenya. He is also
sued as the head of the NPS and on behalf of all the NPS Officers
under his command who participated in the criminal abduction, and
detention of the Petitioner and those who facilitated the removal of the
Petitioner from Kenya.

5. The 4th Respondent, George Kinoti, is the Director of Criminal

Investigation (DCI) and is a member of the NPS. He is the head of
command at the Directorate of Criminal Investigation. He is enjoined
in this Petition on his own behalf for, in total abuse of his powers,
directing and overseeing illegal detention, arrest of the Petitioner, for
contumaciously disregarding Court Orders to produce the Petitioner
before the High Court in Nairobi and instead conspiring with the 1st,
2nd, 4th, and 5th Respondents to illegally remove the Petitioner from
Kenya. He is also sued on behalf of all the NPS Officers under his
command who participated in the criminal abduction, and detention of
the Petitioner and those who facilitated the removal of the Petitioner
from Kenya.

3

6. The 5th Respondent is Mohammed Said, the Officer In-Charge of the
Flying Squad which is a Police Unit of the NPS. He is personally sued
because he was the NPS Officer who was personally in charge of the
group of men who illegally and forcefully, using a detonator explosive,
broke into the Petitioner’s home and house, he was personally heading
the operation to see the Petitioner moved from one place to another
and gave instructions to other NPS officials regarding the detention of
the Petitioner, including directing on the cruel and inhumane manner
in which he was treated and the conditions under which he should be
detained. He was personally present during the transfer of the
Petitioner to Kajiado Law Courts and later to the Jomo Kenyatta
International Airport (JKIA) and was the one issuing instructions on
the cause of action to be taken. He is the one who was directing the
police and immigration officials at JKIA on what to do and he
personally escorted the Petitioner up to the entrance of the aircraft. He
is also the person who organized for and obtained the air ticket that
was used to remove the Petitioner from Kenya.

7. The 6th Respondent is the Officer Commanding Police Division (OCPD)

Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) Police Division and is head
of command for the NPS at JKIA Police Division in Nairobi City
County. He is enjoined in this Petition because he conspired with the
1st to 4th Respondent and authorized police officers under his command
to participate in the illegal detention and removal of the Petitioner
from Kenya on February 6, 2018.

8. The 7th Respondent is Prof Githu Muigai, and the Attorney General
and the State Officer in charge of the office established under Article
156 of the Constitution and is the principal legal adviser to the
National Government, under which national security and by extension
NPS and department of Immigration falls within the functional
competency specified in the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution. He is
sued on his own behalf for professional incompetency and for giving
illegal advice to the 1st to 6th Respondents which caused them to
abduct, detain, torture and treat the Petitioner in a cruel and inhumane
manner and eventually and illegally purport to revoke his citizenship,
to confiscate his passport, designate him as a member of prohibited
class and a prohibited immigrant and eventual removal from Kenya.
He is the Legal Officer responsible for representing national
government in Court. Under Article 156 (6), the 7th Respondent is

4

 obliged to promote, protect and uphold the rule of law and defend the
public interest.

9. The 1st Interested Party is the Kenya National Commission on Human

Rights (KNCHR) which is a Constitutional Commission established by
Article 59 as read together with Article 248 of The Constitution. Its
mandate includes at Article 59:

a. To promote respect for human rights and develop a culture of

human rights in the Republic;
b. To promote the protection, and observance of human rights in
public and private institutions; and,
c. To monitor, investigate and report on the observance of human
rights in all spheres of life in the Republic, including observance by
the national security organs.

FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION

10. On 2nd February, 2018, at about 6.00 am, a group of about thirty four
heavily armed men forcefully broke into the Petitioner’s home located
at 486 Runda Meadows in Runda Estate in Nairobi by using an
explosive detonator contrary to the law and without prior legal
notification, proper identification or at all or warning to the Petitioner
including why they had forced their entry. The Petitioner would only
learn later in the day that these invaders were police officers and/or
agents of and persons under the control and direction of the 3rd, 4th and
5th Respondents. In fact, for the entire duration the Petitioner was
under illegal detention, the 5th Respondent was in-charge and
personally directed what had to be done with the Petitioner.

11. They used explosives to break into the gate to the Petitioner’s home
and his main door. They destroyed property and ransacked the
Petitioner’s house, before they abducted him by forcing him into a car.
They drove him first to Kiambu Police Station, then moved him to
Githunguri Police Station and later to Uplands-Lari Police Station
where he was held for most of the time he was in detention. Between
Friday February 2, 2017, when he was moved to Uplands-Lari Police
Station he was held incommunicado and in deplorable conditions. He
was subjected to torture cruel and inhumane treatment for all the
period of his detention. He was only given food twice during the entire
period of detention, made to stand for very lengthy period, forced to
5

 sleep on cold cement floor without provision for any beddings, at
times denied access to washroom and was threatened with death by
the police officers, including by the 5th Respondent and was constantly
insulted and rebuked by police officers.

12. The Petitioner would finally be moved to Internal Container Depot

Police Station before he was taken to Kajiado Law Courts on 6th
February 2018 to answer to charges of:

a. Being present and consenting to the administration of an oath to

commit a capital offence namely treason contrary to Section 59(a) of
the Penal Code;
b. Taking part in unlawful assembly contrary to Section 5(II) Of the
Public Order Act; and,
c. Engaging in organized criminal activity contrary to Section 3(a) as
read with Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act
No. 6 of 2010.

13. At no time, prior to the invasion of his home and even during the time
the police remained in the house and during the entire time of the
detention of the police before appearing at the Kajiado Law Courts was
the Petitioner informed of the reasons for his detention and or arrest.
Prior to, and at the time of invasion of his home, the police never
informed the Petitioner of their intention to enter and never requested
permission to enter or search his house. In fact the individuals who
violently broke and entered his home and house on 2nd February, 2018,
never identified themselves to him or anyone else before or at the time
of break and entry and for the period they remained at his home.

14. On 2nd February, 2018, Justice Wakiaga heard an Application brought

by the Petitioner seeking anticipatory bail/release and granted him a
Kshs. 50,000.00 cash bail. He ordered that he appear before him on 5th
February 2018.

15. The 3rd and 4th Respondents refused to release the Petitioner as ordered
although they were duly served with the Order of the Court. This
necessitated Justice Kimaru to issue two other Orders to compel the 3rd
and 4th Respondents to release the Petitioner and eventually finding
the two Respondents in contempt of Court. Justice Kimaru issued
similar Orders on 6th February, 2018, specifically requiring that the
Petitioner be released to his Court. On 6th February, 2018 the learned
6

 Judge remained in his Chambers until 7.00 pm to ensure that he was
available for the Petitioner’s release.

16. Earlier in the day on 6th February, 2018, and despite Justice Kimaru’s
Orders of 5th February, 2018 that the 3rd and 4th Respondents produce
the Petitioner in his Court at 9.00 am, the 3rd and 4th Respondents (who
were duly served by the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions)
violated the Orders and together with 5th Respondent instead drove the
Petitioner to Kajiado Law Courts where they presented the above-
named charges and attempted to have the Petitioner charged.
However, the RM at Kajiado ordered the 3rd and 4th Respondents to
present the Petitioner to the High Court in Nairobi to comply with the
Orders of Justice Kimaru. The Honourable E. Mulochi, RM also
required that the Petitioner be brought to his Court for plea on 14th
February, 2018.”

17. Instead of producing the Petitioner as ordered by the High Court and
the Magistrate Court, the 3rd and 4th Respondents continued to detain
the Petitioner driving him to the Airport and conspiring with the 1st,
2nd, 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents, to illegally remove him from Kenya
after the 1st Respondent issued illegal orders ostensibly revoking the
citizenship of the Petitioner and classifying him as a prohibited
immigrant. At all material times up to the point when the Petitioner
was forced by the Officers of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents
(under the active command of the 5th Respondent) to Board the Royal
Dutch Airline Flight KL 0691, the Petitioner remained in the active
custody and control of the 1st to 6th Respondents.

18. At no time prior to being notified that he was being classified as a

prohibited immigrant and his passport confiscated was the Petitioner
notified of the intention of the 1st Respondent to do so. After exiting
Kajiado Law Courts on 6th February, 2018, the Petitioner was denied
any contact with Counsel, intermediary or family member. In fact he
was, until the time he was forced to board the flight held
incommunicado.

19. The Petitioner is a Kenyan citizen by birth born in Magina village on

the shores of river Nyando in the Kano Plains, Kisumu County. Both
his parents – his father Joshua Miguna Jomune and his mother
Margaret Sure Miguna (now both deceased) were Kenyan citizens by

7

 birth. The Petitioner also holds Canadian citizenship acquired through
registration.

20. The Petitioner is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, admitted in

2008 and a Barrister and Solicitor in the Province of Ontario, Canada.
He has been of good standing with the Law Society of Kenya and the
Law Society of Upper Canada for the respective duration of his
admission to the bar. He actively practices as an Advocate in both
jurisdictions.

21. The Petitioner owns a home in Runda Estate Nairobi and in Kisumu
County. Most of his family members reside in Kenya.

22. The Petitioner served as public officer and specifically as a Permanent

Secretary and Constitutional and Legal Adviser to the Grand Coalition
government between 2008 and 2012 and undertook many official
foreign missions on behalf of the government of Kenya. In 2017, the
Petitioner was one of the candidates cleared by the Independent
Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to run for the position of
Governor, Nairobi County. The Petitioner was also an aspirant in 2007
general election for Nyando parliamentary seat during the Orange
Democratic Party (ODM) primaries. He has voted in all the last three
Kenya’s general elections.

CONSTITUTIONAL/STATUTORY BASIS RELATING TO PETITION

& GROUNDS FOR THE PETITION

A. The Rule of Law and Good Governance

23. Article 10 of the Constitution establishes rule of law and good

governance as some of the principles of governance. These principles
are reflected in many parts of the Constitution, including Article 2
which provides that any law or action that is in contravention of the
Constitution is void to the extent of the contravention.

24. The rule of law and good governance principles requires that every
state organ or officer acts only within the powers conferred on them by
and in accordance with the constitution. But the principles also require
state organs/officers discharge legal obligation required on them by
the Constitution or any other law. Critically the rule of law requires

8

 state and public officers to act in accordance with the law, including
and without equivocation, following Court orders.

25. The rule of law requires that any action undertaken by a state
organ/officer be based on the law. Even where a public officer
exercises authority based on discretion, pthat discretion has to be
exercised in compliance with the rule of law principles.

26. Under Article 153(4)(a) requires Cabinet Secretaries to “act in

accordance with this constitution”. Article 156(6) states that the
Attorney General “shall promote, protect and uphold the rule of law
and defend the public interest.”

27. Specific to the National Police Service, Article 244 of the Constitution
provides:

244. The National Police Service shall—

a. strive for the highest standards of professionalism and discipline

among its members;
b. prevent corruption and promote and practice transparency and
accountability;
c. comply with constitutional standards of human rights and
fundamental freedoms;
d. train staff to the highest possible standards of competence and
integrity and to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms
and dignity; and
e. foster and promote relationships with the broader society.

28. Article 19 concerns the observance of the Bill of Rights and provides:

a. The Bill of Rights is an integral part of Kenya’s democratic state and

is the framework for social, economic and cultural policies.
b. The purpose of recognising and protecting human rights and
fundamental freedoms is to preserve the dignity of individuals and
communities and to promote social justice and the realisation of the
potential of all human beings.
c. The rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights—
i. belong to each individual and are not granted by the State;
ii. do not exclude other rights and fundamental freedoms not
in the Bill of Rights, but recognised or conferred by law,
9

 except to the extent that they are inconsistent with this
Chapter; and
iii. are subject only to the limitations contemplated in this
Constitution.

29. Article 21(1) is instructive stating that it “is a fundamental duty of the
State and every State organ to observe, respect, protect, promote and
fulfil the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights.”

B. Citizenship and Right to Citizenship

30. The Petitioner was born a Kenyan, of Kenyan parents and is entitled to
Kenyan citizenship by birth on account of the provisions of Article 14
of the Constitution.

31. The Petitioner did not lose his constitutional right of citizenship upon
acquiring a Canadian Passport as he duly acquired a Kenyan Passport
and National Identification Card in accordance with Article 14(5) of the
Constitution.

32. Under Article 16 of the Constitution, the Petitioner could not lose his
citizenship on account of the Canadian passport.

C. Right to fair hearing

33. The Petitioner was arrested and charged before a Court of law and was
entitled to a hearing on the charge levelled against him as required by
Articles 50(1) and (2) of the Constitution and the right was infringed
when the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents unlawfully removed
him from the jurisdiction in a purported deportation exercise.

VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW

34. TO THE EXTENT THAT the 1st Respondent working in concert and
with the acquiescence of all the other Respondents, purported to cancel
the Petitioner’s citizenship, revoked and confiscated his passport and
designated him as a member of a prohibited class and a prohibited
immigrant, and eventually removed him from Kenya, the Respondents
and particularly the 1st Respondent acted in excess of his powers and
violated the Petitioner’s right to citizenship, his rights to identity
documents including a passport, and his right of movement, to enter,

10

 and reside anywhere in Kenya as provided for in Articles 12, 14 and
39(3) of the Constitution.

35. TO THE EXTENT THAT the 1st Respondent working in concert and
with the acquiescence of all the other Respondents, purported to cancel
the Petitioner’s citizenship, revoked and confiscated his passport and
designated him as a member of a prohibited class and a prohibited
immigrant, without according him to the due process contemplated in
the Constitution, Immigration Act and the Fair Administrative Action
Act, and particularly the rights contemplated in Articles 47, 48 and
51(1) of the Constitution, the Respondents violated the Petitioner’s
rights to due process of the law.

36. TO THE EXTENT THAT the Respondents refused to accord the

Petitioner his right to counsel ad to give him notice of the intended
adverse action that was being taken against him and further failed to
provide him with reasons or any articulable reasons for taking the
adverse action, the Respondents exacerbated the violations of the
Petitioner’s right under Article 47s, 48 and 51(1) of the Constitution.

37. TO THE EXTENT THAT the Respondent’s detained the Petitioner

without justification and without informing him of the reasons of
detention, held him in deplorable and inhumane condition, threatened
him with death and physical harm, denied him food and basic
sanitation services, the Respondents violated all the Petitioner’s right
protected in Article 29 of the Constitution on freedom and security of
the person.

38. TO THE EXTENT THAT the Respondents acted illegally and without
due regard of the constitution and the law, the effect of their violation
is to deny the Petitioner his right to dignity (Art. 28); freedom and the
security of the person (Art. 29); property (Art.40); socio-economic (Art.
43); family (art. 45) rights of a detained person, arrested and persons
held in custody (Art.51) and all other rights that flow with the right to
citizenship.

39. TO THE EXTENT THAT the Respondents undertook all the

enumerated illegal and arbitrary action against the Petitioner in total
disregard of numerous Court Orders that required them to present the
Petitioner before Courts, the Respondents acted in total violation of the
constitutional rule of law and good governance provisions in Article 10

11

 and those specific to each of the Respondent, they abused their office
and violated the requirements of integrity in Chapter Six of the
Constitution and the Public Officers Ethics Act 2003. Moreover, the
skewed interpretation of the constitution and the law, failure to follow
basic requirements of the law to serve the ends of their political
benefactors is also a violation of the rule of law and good governance.
In the circumstances Dr Fred Okengo Matiang’i, Rtd Major Gordon
Kihalangwa, Joseph Boinett, George Kinoti, Mohamed Said and Prof
Githu Muigai are unfit to hold public office.

40. TO THE EXTENT THAT the Respondents undertook all the

enumerated illegal and arbitrary action against the Petitioner in total
disregard of numerous Court Orders that required them to present the
Petitioner before Courts, the Respondents acted in total violation of the
constitutional rule of law and good governance provisions in Article 10
and those specific to each of the Respondent, they abused their office
and violated the requirements of integrity in Chapter Six of the
Constitution and the Public Officers Ethics Act 2003 the charge sheet
and entire proceedings against the Petitioner before the Chief
Magistrates Court at Kajiado Law Courts in Criminal Case No. 174 of
2018, Republic v Miguna Miguna are unconstitutional, unlawful and
cannot stand.

THEREFORE, THE PETITIONER PRAYS AS FOLLOWS:-

a. That a declaration be and is hereby issued that the action of the 1st
Respondent purporting to cancel the citizenship of the Petitioner,
revocation and confiscation of his passport and other identity
documents and the declaration that he was a member of a prohibited
class and a prohibited immigrant and removal from Kenya were made
in violation of Articles 12, 14(1)-(2) and 16 of the Constitution and a
violation of the Petitioner’s right to citizenship including those
specified in Article 39(3) of the Constitution and the 1st Respondent’s
decision made on 6th February, 2018 is therefore, unlawful,
unconstitutional, invalid and void ab initio.

b. That a declaration be and is hereby issued that the action of the 1st
Respondent purporting to cancel the citizenship of the Petitioner,
revocation and confiscation of his passport and other identity
documents and the declaration that he was a member of a prohibited
class and a prohibited immigrant and removal from Kenya were made
12

 in violation of Articles 47, 48 and 51(1) of the Constitution because
they were done without due regard to the requirements of fair
administrative action, access to justice and denied the Petitioner a fair
hearing before a before a court or, another independent and impartial
tribunal or body and the 1st Respondent’s decision made on 6th
February, 2018 is therefore, unlawful, unconstitutional, invalid and
void ab initio.

c. That a declaration be and is hereby issued that the manner in which the
Respondents conducted themselves resulting to the purported
cancellation of the citizenship of the Petitioner, revocation and
confiscation of his passport and other identity documents and the
declaration that he was a member of a prohibited class and a
prohibited immigrant and removal from Kenya were done in violation
of the rule of law and in direct contravention of provisions of the
constitution that guide each of the named Respondents and was
therefore an abuse of office.

d. That a declaration be and is hereby issued that detaining the Petitioner

without justification and without informing him of the reasons of
detention, holding him incommunicado, holding him in deplorable
and inhumane conditions, threatening him with death and physical
harm, denying him food and basic sanitation services, was a violation
of the Petitioner’s rights protected in Article 29 of the Constitution on
freedom and security of the person.

e. That a declaration be and is hereby issued that the action of the

Respondents effectively infringes on the Petitioners rights to dignity
(Art. 28); property (Art.40); family (Art. 45) rights of a detained person,
arrested and persons held in custody (Art.51) and all other rights that
flow with the right to citizenship.

f. That an Order of certiorari be and is hereby issued removing into this

Court and quashing the declaration under section 33 (1) of The Kenya
Citizenship and Immigration Act 2011 dated 6th February, 2018 and
signed by the 1st Respondent, indicating that the Petitioner is not a
citizen of Kenya and that his presence in Kenya was contrary to
national interest.

g. That an Order of certiorari be and is hereby issued removing into this

Court and quashing the declaration under section 43(1) of The Kenya
13

 Citizenship and Immigration Act, 2011 dated 6th February, 2018 and
signed by the 1st Respondent directing the removal of the Petitioner
from Kenya.

h. That an Order of certiorari be and is hereby issued removing into this

and quashing Gazette Notice No. Vol. CXX – No. 15 issued on 30th
January, 2018 by the 1st Respondent, declaring the National Resistance
Movement (NRM) to be a criminal organisation.

i. That an Order of certiorari be and is hereby issued removing into this

Court and quashing the entire proceedings against the Petitioner
before the Chief Magistrates Court at Milimani Law Courts in
Miscellaneous Criminal Appln. No. 375 of 2018 County CID Nairobi
Area of Criminal Investigation Department v Joshua Miguna
Miguna.

j. That an Order of certiorari be and is hereby issued removing into this

Court and quashing the charge sheet and entire proceedings against
the Petitioner before the Chief Magistrates Court at Kajiado Law
Courts in Criminal Case No. 174 of 2018, Republic v Miguna Miguna.

k. That an Order of mandamus be and is hereby issued compelling the

Respondents to return to the Petitioner his Kenyan passport and any
other identification documents taken from him, within 14 days of this
Order.

l. That an Order be and is hereby issued requiring the Respondents to

facilitate the re-entry of the Petitioner to Kenya at a date and time of
his appointing including by issuing him with necessary travel
documents if need be.

m. That an Order for exemplary and punitive damages be and is hereby

issued against the 1st to 7th Respondents jointly and severally, in their
individual personal and official capacities, on account of their gross
violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental freedoms and rights as
enumerated in the Petition.

n. That a declaration be and is hereby issued that Dr Fred Okengo

Matiang’i, Rtd Major Gordon Kihalangwa, Joseph Boinett, George
Kinoti, Said Kiprotich and Prof Githu Muigai are unfit to hold public

14

 office on account of their violations of the Constitution of Kenya,
written law and the Petitioner’s rights.

o. The 1st to 7th Respondents be and are hereby directed bear the costs of
this Petition jointly and severally, in their individual personal and
official capacities.

p. That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant such further Order or

Orders as may be just and appropriate.

DATED at Nairobi this 12th day of February, 2018

KHAMINWA & KHAMINWA

ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONER

15

DRAWN & FILED BY:

KHAMINWA & KHAMINWA

ADVOCATES
LR NO 1/776/F1, GEORGE PADMORE ROAD
OFF MARCUS GARVEY ROAD
P.O. BOX 43758 - 00100
NAIROBI

TO BE SERVED UPON:

1. DR FRED OKENGO MATING’I

MINISTRY OF INTERIOR AND CO-ORDINATION OF NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT
STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
HARAMBEE HOUSE, HARAMBEE AVENUE
P.O. BOX 30310 – 00100
NAIROBI

2. RTD MAJOR GORDON KIHALANGWA

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
DIRECTORATE OF IMMIGRATION AND REGISTRATION OF
PERSONS
NYAYO HOUSE, 20TH FLOOR
KENYATTA AVENUE/UHURU HIGHWAY
P.O. BOX 30191 – 00100
NAIROBI

3. JOSEPH K. BOINETT
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
JOGOO HOUSE A
TAIFA ROAD
P.O. BOX 44249 – 00100
NAIROBI

16

4. GEORGE KINOTI
DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS
DIRECTORATE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS
MAZINGIRA HOUSE
KIAMBU ROAD
P. O. BOX 30036 – 00100
NAIROBI

5. SAID KIPROTICH, OFFICE IN-CHARGE

THE FLYING SQUAD OF KENYA POLICE SERVICE
KENYA POLICE HEADQUARTERS
VIGILANCE HOUSE, HARAMBEE AVENUE
JOGOO HOUSE A
TAIFA ROAD
P.O. BOX 30083
NAIROBI

6. OFFICER COMMANDING POLICE DIVISION – JOMO KENYATTA

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
NAIROBI

7. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CHAMBERS
SHERIA HOUSE
HARAMBEE AVENUE
NAIROBI

8. KENYA NATIONAL COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

CVS PLAZA, 1ST FLOOR
LENANA ROAD
P.O. BOX 74359 – 00200
NAIROBI

17