Former Speaker of the National Assembly and current Attorney General Justin Muturi has dismissed remarks by Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen, who claimed Muturi oversaw the passage of Kenya’s anti-terrorism law while serving as Speaker.

The disagreement comes amid a heated national conversation over the government’s use of anti-terror laws against individuals arrested during recent anti-government protests, a move that has been widely criticised by human rights groups and legal experts.

In a statement issued on Thursday, July 24, 2025, through his official X account, Muturi said the Prevention of Terrorism Act was enacted in 2012—before he became Speaker. “The Prevention of Terrorism Act was enacted in 2012, before I became Speaker. It is Act No. 30 of 2012,” he said.

Muturi clarified that what was passed during his tenure was the Security Laws (Amendment) Act of 2014, which revised various laws but did not introduce the original anti-terror framework.

“What was passed under my leadership was the Security Laws (Amendment) Act, which came into force in December 2014,” he added.

He said the 2014 amendments focused on changing laws such as the Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Evidence Act, and Prisons Act.

Muturi further cautioned Murkomen against spreading inaccurate information. “The Cabinet Secretary should take time to verify his facts before advancing misinformation,” he said.

Despite this, Murkomen remained firm on his stance during a local security meeting in Uasin Gishu, insisting that Muturi had a direct role in passing the anti-terror law. “Did Justin Muturi forget that he pushed this law through Parliament by hook or by crook?” he said. “He was the Speaker when the House passed it and defended it as a necessary tool to protect the country.”

Murkomen has insisted the Prevention of Terrorism Act is still applicable in the current context, especially in cases where protesters are accused of destruction and attacks on public institutions.

“The law is very clear. Anyone who endangers lives, uses explosives, or interferes with essential services can be charged under anti-terror laws,” he said.

He also urged the judiciary not to be swayed by public emotions. “Our judiciary must stand firm and not yield to public sympathy. Peace and order must be preserved.”

The back-and-forth between the two senior state officials points to deepening divisions within government over how the law should be used in the face of growing public dissent.