Justice Cannot Be Self-Administered: Why Ruto Must Step Away From the Compensation Framework

The question of who should lead the conversation on compensation for victims of harm, injury, or death caused by state actions is one of justice and accountability. When the same person accused of wrongdoing attempts to set the compensation rules, it undermines both the process and public trust.

President William Ruto’s recent move to set up a compensation framework is fundamentally flawed. Justice demands independence, impartiality, and a clear separation between alleged perpetrators and those who determine reparations. Ruto cannot play the role of lawmaker, judge, and benefactor simultaneously.

Kenya’s Constitution under Article 10 emphasizes good governance, integrity, transparency, and accountability as binding national values. Any process that bypasses Parliament and the Senate to establish a framework funded by taxpayers is in direct violation of this principle.

Article 94 of the Constitution gives Parliament the sole power to make laws. Establishing a compensation framework that uses public funds must be done through legislation, not executive decree. Anything else is an overreach of presidential authority and is legally questionable.

Further, Article 201 on public finance requires that public funds be used in a manner that promotes equity, accountability, and prudence. Forcing citizens to pay for harm caused by individuals in power is neither equitable nor prudent—it is state-enabled injustice.

Compensation should never be treated as a political tool for damage control. It must be grounded in truth, accountability, and justice. Allowing a president accused of involvement to control the process is akin to a suspect writing their own acquittal.

In any fair justice system, those accused of wrongdoing are recused from decision-making related to the case. This is a basic principle of natural justice—nemo judex in causa sua—no one should be a judge in their own cause.

Read Also: Faith Odhiambo Betrays Kenya’s Youth As She Helps Ruto Escape Criminal Responsibility

Kenya has faced cycles of state-sponsored violence, from post-election chaos to police brutality. Victims have often been left without justice, and any attempt to resolve this must be anchored in the rule of law, not in executive convenience or public relations optics.

A compensation fund should be established through a transparent legislative process. Parliament and Senate must create a clear framework, detailing eligibility criteria, funding mechanisms, and oversight structures. Anything short of this risks becoming another tool for political patronage.

Moreover, using taxpayers’ money to pay for state crimes shifts the burden from perpetrators to innocent citizens. The Constitution empowers the state to recover funds from individuals through legal means—including attachment of property and asset recovery.

The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) should play an active role in tracing and seizing assets of those responsible for violations. Their contributions should fund reparations rather than dipping into the public treasury.

The principle of restorative justice requires that those who cause harm take responsibility for restitution. This is not just a moral question but a legal one. The Prevention of Torture Act, for example, places liability on those who authorize or carry out acts of torture.

Victims must also be at the center of the process. They deserve to participate in shaping the reparations framework. Truth-telling and acknowledgment of wrongdoing are essential for healing, not unilateral decisions from the accused or the executive branch.

Ruto’s involvement in designing this framework compromises the credibility of the entire process. A person named as a key suspect cannot also be the chief architect of compensation. Such a move delegitimizes the pursuit of justice and insults the memory of victims.

The Constitution also guarantees the right to fair administrative action under Article 47. Any process that excludes public participation or lacks independent oversight fails to meet this constitutiona