NCIC vacuum stalls hate speech talks, court orders Salasya case to proceed

Senior Resident Magistrate Paul Mutai fixed the hearing for January 17, 2026, after learning that the conciliation process could not proceed due to the expiry of the NCIC commissioners’ term.

Prosecutor Virginia Kariuki informed the court that the Commission—tasked with promoting dialogue and national harmony—was unable to facilitate the talks, as its mandate had lapsed before the process could commence.

“The conciliation proceedings stalled following the expiry of the Commission’s term,” Kariuki told the court.

Following her submission, Magistrate Mutai ruled that the case had been delayed long enough and should now proceed to a full hearing. He emphasized that the judiciary could not depend on an inactive institution to mediate a criminal matter, adding that “justice must continue even in the absence of the Commission.”

Last month, the court had granted the prosecution’s request to refer the case to the NCIC in an effort to explore reconciliation. The move was in line with the Commission’s mandate to foster cohesion and resolve disputes through dialogue, potentially avoiding a full trial.

However, with the NCIC’s term having expired, several other hate speech cases referred for conciliation have also been thrown into uncertainty.

Magistrate Mutai questioned why the Commission had not been involved earlier, noting that the NCIC’s preventive role should ideally precede criminal prosecution.

In response, the prosecution clarified that while the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the NCIC operate independently, the two offices regularly cooperate in addressing hate speech complaints.

The case against MP Peter Salasya arises from remarks he allegedly made during a public event earlier this year—comments that the DPP described as inflammatory and capable of inciting ethnic tension.