The Appellate court has set aside contempt penalties issued against three former state officials in relation to the 2018 deportation of lawyer Miguna Miguna, faulting the High Court for handing down punishment without observing proper legal procedure.
In a ruling delivered by Justices Wanjiru Karanja, Lydia Achode, and Joel Ngugi, the appellate court found that former Interior Cabinet Secretary Fred Matiang’i, ex-Immigration Principal Secretary Gordon Kihalangwa, and former Inspector General of Police Joseph Boinett were unfairly fined KSh200,000 each. The judges said the High Court acted without a formal contempt application and denied the accused the right to defend themselves adequately.
“The record does not show any properly filed application. In such circumstances, the court should have required a formal motion supported by evidence and heard both sides before making a finding of contempt,” the judges stated.
Miguna’s confrontation with the state began after he attempted to return to Kenya in March 2018, only to be detained at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport. His travel papers were seized, he was confined in Terminal 2, and later placed on a flight to Canada despite court orders directing his release. Miguna argued that the treatment amounted to a violation of his constitutional rights.
At the time, Justice George Odunga ordered government agencies to obey the release directive. When compliance was not forthcoming, the judge summoned the three officials to explain themselves. Their absence led to the fines being imposed, with the amount deducted from their monthly salaries.
In their appeal, the officials maintained that the orders were impossible to enforce, pointing out that Miguna had refused to produce his Canadian passport and insisted on using a Kenyan identity card instead. They also argued that Justice Odunga relied on oral submissions rather than a properly constituted contempt application.
The appellate judges agreed with those concerns, noting that while state officers must respect court orders, the judiciary equally bears responsibility to safeguard due process. The ruling leaves open the option of a fresh contempt motion being filed, provided it follows the required legal procedures.
The judgment is likely to rekindle debate over the Miguna saga, which has remained one of the most controversial confrontations between the state and an outspoken critic in recent years.
