NAIROBI, Kenya, July 23 — Chief Justice Martha Koome on Wednesday firmly distanced herself from the Director of Public Prosecutions’ (DPP) use of her remarks to justify terrorism charges preferred against June 25 and July 7 anti-government protesters.Instead Koome asserted that prosecutorial decisions must be grounded in credible evidence, and not influenced by public statements — including her own.In a statement issued Wednesday, CJ Koome clarified that her comments following the arson attack on the Kikuyu Law Courts on June 25 were specific to that incident and should not be interpreted as a blanket endorsement of terrorism charges in other protest-related cases.“At the time, based on preliminary security briefings received immediately following the incident, I stated that the destruction was not carried out by local residents or peaceful protestors. Instead, the attackers were individuals brought in from outside Kikuyu, with the specific intention of destroying the court and adjacent public property,” Koome said, referencing her June 26 visit to the scene.Koome emphasized that her remarks were made in response to a targeted, organized attack on a court and nearby government offices — not a general characterization of protests or protestors.She reaffirmed that the DPP, under Article 157(10) of the Constitution, is an independent office and should not be influenced by public statements, even those made by the Chief Justice.“Decisions to investigate or prosecute must be based on credible evidence and the law. They are not influenced by public statements made by any individual, including the Chief Justice,” she stated.Her clarification comes just days after the DPP released a statement defending the decision to charge several protestors under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA).The DPP cited CJ Koome’s earlier comments in support of the claim that the acts in question amounted to terrorism.The ODPP argued that the protests of June 25 and July 7—which saw courts, police stations, and other government buildings vandalized or torched—were not spontaneous demonstrations but “calculated and coordinated acts of violence” intended to disrupt essential services and instill fear, thereby meeting the threshold for terrorism under Sections 2 and 4 of POTA.However, the move has drawn sharp criticism from civil society and legal experts.A coalition of over 20 rights groups under the Police Reforms Working Group (PRWG) decried the charges as an abuse of anti-terror legislation.“We are deeply concerned by the continued misuse of the Prevention of Terrorism Act to manage public order in more than 100 other cases,” the group said, warning that the trend threatens civil liberties and erodes Kenya’s credibility in global counterterrorism efforts.In her statement, CJ Koome echoed concerns over the integrity of the criminal justice system and reiterated the principles agreed upon at the National Council on the Administration of Justice (NCAJ) meeting held on July 15.The Council resolved that law enforcement must remain effective, accountable, and constitutionally anchored, and that civic space and the rights of human rights defenders must be protected.“Our goal is a criminal justice system that remains true to the Constitution and serves the public interest,” Koome said.She assured Kenyans that the Judiciary remains committed to fairness and the rule of law: “Everyone brought before the courts, regardless of the charge, will be treated fairly and given a full and fair hearing.”The statement comes at a time of increased concern within Kenya’s justice sector over the handling of recent unrest, as pressure mounts on state institutions to balance security imperatives with constitutional protections and human rights.