Justice must never look like persecution: The troubling manner of Raphael Tuju’s eviction

In a constitutional democracy, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

The recent events surrounding the eviction and auction of properties linked to former Cabinet Minister Raphael Tuju raise troubling questions about the boundaries between lawful debt enforcement and actions that appear punitive, excessive, and deeply undignified.

Let us be clear from the outset; commercial disputes are a normal part of economic life.

When individuals or companies enter into financial agreements, obligations must be honoured. If disputes arise, the law provides mechanisms for resolving them through negotiations, courts, and legally sanctioned recovery processes. No one, regardless of their political stature or influence, should be above these legal obligations.

However, while the existence of a commercial dispute must be acknowledged, the manner in which enforcement actions are carried out matters greatly. The treatment of individuals during such processes speaks volumes about a society’s commitment to human rights, fairness, and the rule of law.

The eviction and auction processes associated with Tuju have sparked widespread concern not necessarily because they occurred, but because of how they occurred.

Images and reports manifesting abrupt displacement, aggressive enforcement, and the dismantling of long-standing sources of livelihood create the uncomfortable impression that the objective was not merely to settle a financial dispute but to break an individual economically and symbolically.

That perception alone should worry anyone who believes in justice.

The Kenyan constitution, widely regarded as one of Africa’s most progressive guarantees the protection of human dignity, property rights, and fair administrative action.

These are not abstract ideals; they are fundamental principles intended to protect citizens from excessive or arbitrary exercise of power.

Even when someone owes a debt, enforcement should be guided by proportionality, transparency, and respect for dignity.

Auctioning property is a legal tool, but it should be used carefully and only after all other avenues have been exhausted.

When the process appears rushed, humiliating, or disproportionately destructive to a person’s economic foundation, legitimate questions arise about whether justice has crossed the line into punishment.

This is particularly concerning in a country where political rivalries are often intense and where perceptions of selective enforcement have historically undermined public trust in institutions.

If the legal system is perceived as a weapon rather than a neutral arbiter, the damage extends far beyond one individual.

It erodes confidence in the judiciary, discourages investment, and fuels the belief that power and influence rather than fairness, determine outcomes.

The case of Tuju, therefore, should not be reduced to political loyalties or personal opinions about him. Whether one admires or criticises him politically is irrelevant. Human rights principles are universal and they do not apply only to those we agree with.

Today it may be Tuju facing the full force of aggressive enforcement. Tomorrow it could be a business owner caught in a loan dispute, a farmer struggling with bank arrears, or an ordinary Kenyan navigating a contractual disagreement.

If economic disputes can lead to the complete dismantling of a person’s livelihood without careful safeguards for fairness and dignity, then no citizen is truly secure.

Kenya’s courts and financial institutions must therefore be vigilant. Debt recovery must never become a spectacle.

Evictions must not resemble acts of vengeance. Enforcement processes should be structured to recover legitimate debts while preserving the constitutional rights of those involved.

In mature democracies, even individuals convicted of serious crimes retain their dignity and basic rights.

It would therefore be deeply troubling if a commercial dispute, however significant results in treatment that appears harsher than what is afforded to those who have committed criminal offences.

This moment should prompt a broader national reflection about the balance between commercial justice and human rights.

Kenya has made tremendous strides in building legal and democratic institutions since the promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.

Those gains must not be undermined by actions that create the perception that the law can be used to economically destroy individuals.

Justice must always be firm, but it must also be humane.

The measure of a society governed by the rule of law is not how it treats the powerful when they are thriving, but how it treats individuals when they are vulnerable, indebted, or unpopular.

If Kenya is to remain true to its constitutional ideals, enforcement of commercial disputes must always reflect fairness, restraint, and respect for human dignity.

Anything less risks turning justice into something far more dangerous: persecution disguised as legality.

The author is Mr. Francis Awino, National Convener, Mtetezi-Grassroots Economic Justice Movement