The Judiciary has strongly defended its handling of abduction cases after taking issue with a front-page headline published by The Standard newspaper, which questioned the courts’ effectiveness in protecting victims and holding State agencies accountable.
In a statement issued on Friday, November 6, 2026, Judiciary Spokesperson Paul Ndemo challenged the newspaper’s headline, ‘Big Talk, Small Act’, arguing that the institution should not be held responsible for failures by police, investigators, prosecutors and other agencies mandated to enforce the law.
The response followed the publication of a critical report by The Standard, which examined the Judiciary’s handling of cases involving abductions and alleged impunity among law enforcement officers.
The newspaper questioned whether court interventions were delivering meaningful results for families seeking answers about missing relatives, particularly where judicial orders had allegedly not been followed.
However, the Judiciary maintained that its constitutional role is to determine disputes, protect fundamental rights and hold individuals and institutions accountable through the judicial process — not to conduct criminal investigations or carry out arrests.
“The Judiciary is an independent and impartial arbiter of disputes, not an investigative, prosecutorial or law enforcement agency,” Ndemo said.
Why the Judiciary Responded to The Standard
The disagreement was triggered by The Standard’s November 6 front-page report titled ‘Big Talk, Small Act: How Judiciary Has Turned Quest for Justice into a Mockery’.
The report examined growing frustration among families seeking justice for relatives who have allegedly been abducted or forcibly disappeared.
It raised questions about whether the courts were doing enough to ensure that police officials and other State officers comply with judicial orders issued in cases involving missing persons.
The newspaper also questioned the effectiveness of court interventions where allegations of abductions continued to emerge despite legal proceedings and public demands for accountability.
One of the cases attracting attention involves Nairobi-based lawyer Abshir Ahmedsadak Abdi, whose reported abduction has intensified public scrutiny of the conduct of security agencies and the handling of disappearance cases.
The Judiciary, however, argued that the newspaper’s criticism risked placing responsibility on the wrong institution by failing to distinguish between the constitutional mandates of the courts and those of investigative and enforcement agencies.
Judiciary Says It Cannot Investigate Abductions or Arrest Suspects
In its response, the Judiciary explained that courts are not responsible for investigating criminal activities, gathering evidence, conducting security operations or prosecuting suspects.
Those responsibilities fall under other State institutions, including investigative agencies, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and law enforcement authorities.
Ndemo said the Judiciary’s role is to hear disputes, determine legal questions and protect the rights of individuals in accordance with the Constitution and applicable laws.
He added that courts can hold individuals and institutions accountable based on the evidence and legal arguments presented before them.
The spokesperson maintained that blaming the courts for failures by police or prosecutors could mislead the public about how Kenya’s constitutional institutions are expected to operate.
The Judiciary therefore urged journalists to provide accurate explanations of the responsibilities of different State agencies when reporting on cases involving alleged human rights violations.
Judiciary Condemns Abductions and Enforced Disappearances
Despite rejecting what it considered misplaced criticism, the Judiciary emphasised that it does not support abductions, enforced disappearances or violations of constitutional rights.
The institution said it unequivocally condemns unlawful actions that threaten the lives, freedom and dignity of Kenyans.
It also maintained that courts have consistently exercised their constitutional powers to protect individuals whose rights have allegedly been violated.
Among the legal remedies available to affected families is habeas corpus, a court process through which authorities can be required to produce a detained person and explain the legal basis for their detention.
Such proceedings are particularly important in cases where families cannot establish the whereabouts of relatives believed to have been taken into custody.
The Judiciary’s position is that courts can issue appropriate orders when presented with relevant applications and evidence, but the effectiveness of those orders also depends on the response of the institutions and individuals directed to comply with them.
The institution insisted that the fight against enforced disappearances requires cooperation between the courts, police, prosecutors and other government agencies.
State Agencies Warned Against Ignoring Court Orders
The Judiciary also used its response to remind government institutions that judicial orders are binding and must be respected.
Ndemo said responsibility for implementing court orders rests with the individuals and institutions to whom those orders are directed.
This means that where a court issues an order requiring a State agency or public official to take a particular action, the recipient is expected to comply in accordance with the law.
The Judiciary argued that failures to implement such orders should not automatically be treated as failures by the courts themselves.
The distinction is important in cases involving alleged abductions, where families may approach the courts seeking information about missing relatives, the production of detained persons or protection against violations of their rights.
However, issuing an order and ensuring that the relevant agency complies with it are separate responsibilities.
The Judiciary maintained that public institutions must respect the authority of the courts if constitutional protections are to have practical meaning.
Judiciary Urges Media to Avoid Sensationalised Reporting
The institution acknowledged that the media has a constitutional responsibility to scrutinise public institutions and expose failures in the administration of justice.
However, it cautioned journalists against sensationalised reporting and broad accusations that could create confusion about the constitutional responsibilities of different arms and agencies of government.
Ndemo said the media should exercise diligence when reporting on judicial proceedings, particularly where allegations concern police conduct, investigations and the implementation of court orders.
The Judiciary maintained that criticism of its work should be based on an accurate understanding of its mandate and the legal processes available to victims of rights violations.
It also argued that holding the correct institutions accountable is essential to strengthening public confidence in constitutional governance.
“The shared commitment of the Judiciary and the media must be to strengthen constitutional governance, advance justice and sustain public confidence in the rule of law,” Ndemo said.
Abduction Cases Continue to Raise Questions About State Accountability
The exchange between the Judiciary and The Standard comes amid growing public concern over reported abductions and enforced disappearances in Kenya.
Families of missing persons, human rights organisations, lawyers and other civil society groups have repeatedly demanded investigations, accountability and information about the whereabouts of people believed to have been taken against their will.
The reported disappearance of lawyer Abshir Abdi has added to the pressure on security agencies to provide answers and demonstrate that allegations of unlawful detention and abduction are being investigated.
The debate has also raised broader questions about the relationship between court orders, police investigations and the enforcement of constitutional rights.
While the Judiciary insists that it cannot perform the duties of investigative and law enforcement agencies, critics argue that courts must also ensure that their interventions are effective and that disregard for judicial authority does not go unchallenged.
Ultimately, the dispute highlights a wider accountability challenge: Kenya’s constitutional protections can only work effectively when every institution fulfils its responsibilities.
The Judiciary has defended its mandate and urged the media to report fairly, while the questions raised by The Standard reflect the public’s continuing demand for justice for families affected by abductions.
As the debate continues, attention is likely to remain on whether investigative agencies can establish the facts in reported disappearance cases, whether prosecutors can pursue credible evidence and whether court orders will be respected by those required to implement them.
Also Read: UK Issues New Travel Warning for Kenyan Town as Ethiopia Conflict Escalates