By Alfred Mataza | July 24, 2026
Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja has told the High Court that he was unaware of the ongoing dispute surrounding the management of Gatoto Primary School in Mukuru kwa Njenga until he received court summons, arguing that issues relating to the enforcement of court orders should be handled by police commanders on the ground.
Appearing before Milimani High Court Judge Gregory Mutai, Kanja defended the National Police Service (NPS) against allegations that it had failed to enforce court orders concerning the management and handover of the school.
The Inspector General told the court that he only became aware of the matter on Thursday, July 23, 2026, after being notified of the court proceedings, maintaining that he had not previously received any briefing regarding the dispute.
Kanja explained that the National Police Service operates through a structured chain of command, where local security matters are primarily handled by officers stationed within the affected areas.
He argued that the Officer Commanding Police Division (OCPD) and the Officer Commanding Station (OCS) responsible for the Mukuru kwa Njenga area were better placed to explain the circumstances surrounding the implementation of the court orders.
According to the Inspector General, local police commanders possess firsthand knowledge of the prevailing security situation and operational challenges in their respective jurisdictions.
He therefore urged the court to allow the officers directly involved in the matter to provide detailed accounts of the events on the ground.
Kanja further assured the court that the National Police Service remains committed to enforcing lawful court orders and maintaining peace whenever required.
However, he noted that police operations must always take into account the prevailing security environment to ensure that enforcement actions do not escalate tensions or endanger members of the public.
The Inspector General said the police are prepared to provide adequate security whenever the school’s management transition is undertaken, provided the exercise is conducted within the law and with proper coordination among all stakeholders.
The dispute stems from a High Court ruling issued on June 25, 2026, directing the Ministry of Education to register Gatoto Primary School as a private, non-profit Alternative Provision of Basic Education and Training (APBET) institution under its board of directors.
The ruling effectively removed the institution from public management, a decision that has generated significant opposition from sections of the local community.
Petitioners in the case, represented by Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Charles Kanjama and Senior Counsel Martha Karua, later filed contempt proceedings, accusing government officials and security agencies of failing to implement the court’s directives.
During the proceedings, Kanjama informed the court that a vehicle belonging to Martha Karua was allegedly attacked, stoned and vandalized by suspected goons while attempts were being made to serve the court orders.
The incident raised concerns about the security of parties involved in the case and prompted renewed calls for police protection during the implementation of the court’s decision.
Residents and some local leaders have continued to oppose the privatization of the school, arguing that it was established on land donated by the community and should therefore remain a public institution accessible to all children.
They contend that changing the school’s management status would undermine the intentions of community members who contributed land and resources toward its establishment.
The management dispute has since evolved into a broader legal and governance battle involving the Ministry of Education, school administrators, local residents and civil society organizations.
As the case continues, the High Court is expected to determine whether government officials and security agencies complied with its earlier directives and what further measures should be taken to facilitate implementation of the judgment.
The outcome of the proceedings is likely to have significant implications for the administration of Alternative Provision of Basic Education and Training (APBET) institutions and the enforcement of court orders involving public education facilities across the country.
