Former Chief Justice Willy Mutunga appeared at the Mombasa Law Courts on October 8, 2018 where he was testifying as a witness in a case where Muslim for Human Rights had sued the government for linking it with al-Shabaab.
Mutunga says he was shocked and traumatised when a human rights organisation he was a founder member was linked to terrorist activities in 2015.
Dr Mutunga, who at the time was the CJ, told the court that he thought of calling the Inspector-General of Police after Muslims for Human Rights (Muhuri) was linked to terrorism.
“I realised calling the IG would have caused trouble, I would have violated the principles of independence (of the three arms of government) had I asked the IG,” he said.
Dr Mutunga said he could also not call the IG as he would have been in trouble with the Judicial Service Commission. The former CJ was testifying in a case in which the human rights organisation and its board chairman Khelef Khalifa have sued the Attorney-General, IG, Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) and Financial Reporting Centre (FRC) seeking Sh2.1 million in damages for being linked with terrorism.
Dr Mutunga, who was senior counsel James Orengo’s witness, said the impact of terrorism accusations on an organisation are severe as it feels unprotected and gives a leeway to the State to follow it.
He further said that accusations injure the reputation of the organisation as its employees start doubting whether they have been lured into an illegal entity.
“A lot of leaders would go underground and be traumatised,” said Dr Mutunga, adding that once an organisation has been linked to terrorism, it is much like a death sentence as it stops being funded.
He described Muhuri as an organisation which conducted itself within the Constitution and the law and a respected human rights organisation with activists who respect the rule of law.
Muhuri argues that on April 7, 2015, the IG in breach of his constitutional mandate listed the lobby in the Kenya Gazette as one of the institutions suspected to be a terrorist organisation.
The lobby argues that CBK and FRC, without any basis in law and acting on the information from the Inspector-General, gave instructions for the freezing of its accounts.
“The actions of the defendants caused the plaintiffs reputation to be injured in the eyes of the public,” argued Muhuri in its documents.
Muhuri and Mr Khalifa argue that together with their officers, they were exposed to public odium, and injury of their character, as persons who support terrorism and terrorist organisation.
Muhuri said that the defendants have never retracted or issued a public apology for the ‘illegal and unlawful’ acts which led to the loss and damage it has suffered on their reputation both locally and internationally.