There is a peculiar absurdity in a journalist being arrested while reporting on a protest, bundled into a police vehicle despite identifying himself, and taken to a station where the very institution he was covering must explain what happened. In Nairobi, that absurdity has become a test of whether the law can compel the guardians of public order to account for their conduct.
The Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) has announced plans to visit Nairobi’s Central Police Station as it investigates the arrest and alleged mistreatment of Citizen TV journalist Francis Ode during demonstrations against rising fuel prices.
In a statement dated Thursday, October 22, the authority said its investigators would examine relevant police records and obtain accounts from officers deployed to manage public order during the protests. The visit marks a consequential step in an investigation that has rapidly developed into a broader confrontation over police accountability and the freedom of the press.
Ode was arrested on Tuesday, October 20, while covering demonstrations along Kimathi Street in Nairobi’s Central Business District. The protests came amid public anger over rising fuel costs, an issue whose consequences extend well beyond the petrol station to transport fares, food prices and the everyday arithmetic of survival.
According to Ode’s account, he was filming from the journalists’ side when demonstrators began fleeing. A uniformed officer allegedly pointed him out to colleagues and ordered them to arrest him. Despite repeatedly identifying himself as a journalist and displaying his press credentials, Ode says, officers ignored his pleas.
He alleges that he was dragged, assaulted and had his clothes torn before being bundled into a police vehicle alongside protesters. He was subsequently detained at Central Police Station and released after the intervention of senior officers.
The allegations have attracted condemnation from the Crime Journalists Association of Kenya and the Kenya Editors Guild, while Royal Media Services editorial director Linus Kaikai criticised the conduct of the officers involved. Ode has also recorded a statement with IPOA as part of the inquiry.
The authority has indicated that at least seven officers are under scrutiny, including senior personnel at Central Police Station and officers allegedly involved in the arrest. Their accounts will be important in establishing the circumstances surrounding the incident and whether any misconduct occurred.
The legal stakes are considerable. Article 34 of Kenya’s Constitution guarantees the freedom and independence of the media, while Article 29 protects every person against arbitrary detention and violence. Article 244 further requires the National Police Service to uphold professionalism, discipline, transparency and accountability.
None of these provisions grants journalists immunity from lawful police action. Officers retain the responsibility to maintain public order and respond to genuine threats. But that authority must be exercised within the law, not through arbitrary force or disregard for a person’s rights.
The inquiry also carries an uncomfortable historical echo. Ode has spoken of fearing for his life while detained at the same station where teacher and blogger Albert Ojwang died in police custody in June 2025. The circumstances of the two cases are different, but the reference illustrates the depth of public anxiety surrounding detention and police conduct.
For IPOA, the task is now to move beyond public outrage and establish the facts. Police records, witness accounts, video footage and the officers’ explanations will be critical to determining what happened and whether disciplinary or criminal proceedings are warranted.
The journalist has been released. That, however, is the least demanding part of justice.
The more difficult question is whether an officer who abuses the authority of the state can be identified, investigated and held accountable. A free press cannot function when those who document public power must fear becoming its next victims.
In the end, the test of a democratic police service is not whether it can disperse a crowd. It is whether it can explain, lawfully and transparently, what it did to the people caught in its path.