The controversial death of Albert Ojwang has jolted the conscience of the nation and, under growing public pressure, forced key duty bearers out of their hiding holes. What was initially met with silence and bureaucratic deflection has, in the face of relentless calls from Kenyan citizens and civil society groups, transformed into a cascade of institutional responses.
Suddenly, the Senate summoned Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen, Inspector General Douglas Kanja, and IPOA Deputy Chairperson Ann Wanjiku. President Ruto; previously silent issued a statement. Institutions implicated in the arrest, including the Communications Authority of Kenya and Safaricom, rushed to distance themselves and clarify their roles. This swift reactive accountability begs the question. of Who bears the greatest responsibility following the death of Albert Ojwang’
In a brief yet carefully worded appearance before the Senate, Cabinet Secretary for Interior and National Administration, Kipchumba Murkomen, distanced himself from direct culpability in Albert Ojwang’s arrest. Citing Article 245 of the Constitution, he asserted that his role is confined to policy formulation, not operational control of the police.
He stressed that the Inspector General enjoys full operational independence and that neither the President nor any Cabinet Secretary can lawfully instruct the Inspector General of Police. Yet, while Murkomen may not bear operational responsibility, he undeniably holds political and moral responsibility as the highest-ranking government official tasked with internal security policy. His remarks “the Constitution did not give me the eyes to see who is capable” betray a troubling abdication of leadership in a time of crisis. When policy enables abuse, and the system fails to act preventively or transparently, the policymaker cannot simply retreat behind legal clauses. Responsibility, in this case, is unavoidable.
The Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja also appeared before the Senate evasive mean with the truth and sparse on specifics. He claimed that the arrest of Albert Ojwang was based on intelligence shared by the Communications Authority of Kenya (CAK), an assertion swiftly denied by the Authority. Communications Authority of Kenya disowned any role in the incident, stating it neither shared nor sanctioned the release of such data. But who mentions the government’s top-tier parastatal in vain?
Safaricom has also been implicated in allegedly providing subscriber information that may have led to Ojwang’s location and arrest, equally distanced itself, denying any data-sharing involvement. Who references a blue-chip company without due respect or justification? While these entities attempt to shield themselves from scrutiny, each bears a distinct form of institutional responsibility. Even though in a rare occurrence in Kenya the IG apologized publicly following the initial suicide narrative the apology came dangerously late and he holds operational responsibility his command decisions directly influence police actions. Communication Authority of Kenya and Safaricom bear technocratic and corporate responsibility respectively, as custodians of sensitive data that, if misused, can cost lives.
Independent Police Oversight Authority (IPOA) named five officers linked to Albert Ojwang’s detention and suspended them pending investigations, but its response remains underwhelming. The officers are accused of excessive force, unlawful arrest, and concealing evidence. Yet, four days after Albert’s death, IPOA has not provided a clear, hour-by-hour account of Albert Ojwang’s movements from the time of his arrest to the discovery of his body.
This lack of detail raises serious concerns. IPOA’s past failures to hold officers accountable along with the perceived closeness, cosiness, and apparent “bromance” between its chairperson and the police top brass cast doubt on its independence. IPOA’s initial silence regarding the police’s suicide claim further erodes public confidence in its commitment to justice. However, this case presents IPOA with a critical opportunity to restore Kenyans’ trust in oversight bodies by demonstrating investigative integrity, moral responsibility, and an unwavering commitment to police accountability.
In the case of Albert Ojwang, just like the 2024 Finance Bill, President William Ruto remained silent until when the centre could not hold. He issued a brief statement deferring the matter to the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA). While IPOA is mandated to investigate police misconduct, the President’s hands-off approach in this matter is insufficient. As Head of State and Government, Ruto took an oath to protect all Kenyans. That responsibility is not optional it is foundational to leadership.
This obligation is best explained by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (1651), where he warned that without a strong state, life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” To avoid such chaos, citizens surrender some freedoms to a sovereign authority in exchange for protection and order. In this tradition, the President is the final authority, not a bystander. He cannot pass the buck to IPOA or any other agency. Presidents have no one above them to defer to they are the last men standing in times of national crisis.
In this light, President Ruto’s deferral is a failure of leadership. Kenyans are not just demanding investigation they are demanding justice and action. What happened to Executive Orders? Where is the Executive Order for an Independent Inquiry into Ojwang’s Death or the Order to Suspend and Vet Officers Implicated? The President must act decisively, not symbolically. Anything less undermines the very social contract that binds citizens to the state.
Ultimately, President William Ruto bears the greatest responsibility in this matter. As the Head of State and Government, he stands at the apex of Kenya’s constitutional order and security apparatus. The confusing sequence of events, the accusations and counter-accusations between state agencies, and the glaring lack of inter-agency coordination have only deepened public mistrust. Compounding this is the apparent misuse of surveillance powers, inconsistent communication from law enforcement, and IPOA’s delayed and underwhelming response.
While every institution appears eager to shift blame, none can supersede the President’s constitutional duty to safeguard life, ensure transparency, and uphold the rule of law. In moments of national outrage and grief, leadership is not about technical delegations it is about moral clarity and decisive action. Kenyans are not only demanding answers they are demanding accountability, truth, and justice. For that, the President cannot remain on the sidelines. If the state fails to deliver justice for Albert Ojwang, it will be a failure of the highest office and a betrayal of the very social contract that holds Kenya together.
