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 constitutional threshold and should be challenged in court.

Kenya’s judiciary has repeatedly ruled against unconstitutional executive actions. This framework, if unchallenged, would set a dangerous precedent where perpetrators dictate reparations. Civil society must file petitions to halt such overreach.

International law is also clear on this issue. The UN Basic Principles on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation state that victims have a right to an effective remedy, including fair compensation. Such remedies must be impartial and free from conflicts of interest.

Allowing the executive to dictate compensation risks politicizes justice. Reparations could be selectively distributed to allies or denied to perceived opponents, further fueling national division and resentment.

Kenya’s history of commissions—such as the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC)—shows that reparations without accountability are hollow. We must learn from past failures and demand a credible, independent process.

The Senate, as the protector of devolution, should ensure victims across all counties are treated fairly. Reparations should not be limited to those with political leverage but must be available to all affected citizens, regardless of region or tribe.

Independent oversight is non-negotiable. A multi-stakeholder body involving Parliament, judiciary representatives, civil society, and victims’ associations should be mandated to manage the fund. Only then can trust be restored in the process.

This is also an economic issue. Every shilling misallocated from public funds to cover crimes of individuals deepens Kenya’s debt crisis. The public should not finance impunity. Asset recovery is both just and fiscally responsible.

Kenya’s leadership must remember that justice delayed is justice denied, but justice compromised is justice destroyed. Quick fixes that lack legitimacy will only perpetuate cycles of violence and retaliation in future political disputes.

The constitutionally enshrined principle of checks and balances exists to prevent exactly this kind of executive overreach. Parliament must assert its role and reclaim legislative authority over this critical matter.

This debate is not about partisan politics but about the future of constitutionalism in Kenya. If a sitting president can harm citizens and then dictate compensation terms, tomorrow any leader could do the same with impunity.

Civil society, the media, and the public must demand transparency and accountability. Silence in the face of executive overreach normalizes impunity and weakens the very democratic gains fought for since independence.

Ultimately, this is about dignity and justice for victims. You cannot harm a person, kill their loved one, and then turn around to decide how much their pain is worth without their participation. Justice must be seen to be done.

President Ruto must step back from this process entirely. His government must submit a bill to Parliament, subject to public participation, to establish a lawful, fair, and independent reparations framework. Anything less is an insult to victims.

Kenya stands at a crossroads. We can either allow state impunity to thrive or insist that justice be blind, independent, and grounded in law. Our choice today will determine whether future generations inherit justice or institutionalized injustice.

Read Also: Kenya’s Three Lost Years: A Critique Of Ruto’s Presidency