Court proceedings at the Milimani Law Courts unfolded under heightened tension on Tuesday as a routine session took an unexpected turn, drawing the attention of lawyers, court users and security personnel alike.
What began as an ordinary hearing soon shifted focus, briefly interrupting the flow of judicial business and prompting swift intervention by authorities within the courtroom.
The case before the court involves university student David Mokaya, who is facing charges related to alleged false publication.
Prosecutors accuse Mokaya of publishing information deemed misleading, an allegation his defence team has strongly contested.
The matter has drawn attention from activists and free speech advocates who argue that the case raises broader questions about expression, accountability and the use of criminal law in regulating online content.
It was in this context that activist Julius Kamau disrupted the session. According to court officials, Kamau stood up during the hearing and addressed the court without permission, expressing objections to the proceedings and questioning the basis of the charges.
Also read
- IG Kanja Under Fire: Opposition Threatens to Take Police Boss to Court!
- Senate Drama: Sifuna Publicly Schools Cherargei in Fiery Confrontation
- Rogue Canisters? Murkomen Says Police Not Behind Shocking Rally Scenes
- Mp Babu Owino Demands Immediate Release of Relative Allegedly Picked by DCI
- Security Breach or Political Targeting? Murkomen Speaks Out on Sifuna Rally
His actions prompted an immediate response from court orderlies, who moved to restore calm as murmurs spread across the courtroom.
The magistrate temporarily halted the session and warned that the court would not tolerate interruptions, emphasizing the need to respect judicial processes regardless of personal opinions.
Kamau was subsequently escorted out of the courtroom, allowing the hearing to resume after a brief delay.
Outside the courtroom, Kamau defended his actions, telling journalists that he felt compelled to speak out in what he described as an unjust process.
He argued that cases involving speech should be handled with caution, warning that such prosecutions could have a chilling effect on young people and activists.
However, legal experts noted that courts provide structured avenues for raising concerns, including formal applications and public interest litigation, rather than spontaneous disruptions.
Mokaya’s defence team maintained that their client would continue to seek justice through lawful means, while the prosecution insisted the case should be allowed to proceed without external pressure.
The court adjourned the matter to a later date, with the magistrate reiterating that order must be maintained to ensure fairness for all parties involved.
The incident has once again highlighted the tension between activism and courtroom decorum, reigniting debate over how best to balance public advocacy with respect for the rule of law.
About the Author
