Relief for Matiang’i as Court of Appeal acquits him in 2018 Miguna contempt case

Former Interior Cabinet Secretary Dr. Fred Matiang’i can finally breathe easy after the Court of Appeal overturned a 2018 High Court decision that had found him in contempt of court in the dramatic Miguna Miguna saga.

In a ruling delivered on Friday, September 19, 2025, appellate judges Wanjiru Karanja, Lydia Achode, and Joel Ngugi set aside contempt findings and personal fines of Ksh.200,000 each that had been slapped on Dr. Matiang’i, then Immigration Principal Secretary (Rtd) Maj. Gen. Gordon Kihalangwa, and former Inspector General of Police Joseph Boinnet.

The contempt charges stemmed from events in March 2018 when Miguna, a lawyer and politician, was denied re-entry into Kenya at the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) despite multiple court orders directing that he be allowed back.

High Court Judge George Odunga, citing open defiance of court orders, had declared the three senior officials in contempt, accusing them of sending “wrong signals” to Kenyans and undermining the rule of law.

But the Court of Appeal ruled that while obedience to court orders is not optional, the process used to convict Matiang’i and his co-appellants was fatally flawed.

The judges held that the High Court punished the officials “without a formally instituted contempt application and attendant due-process safeguards.”

“Contempt undermines the rule of law, but it is quasi-criminal in nature and requires formal motion practice, proper notice, and proof before penalties are imposed,” the appellate bench stated.

The ruling emphasized that the courts retain inherent power to enforce their authority but stressed that even powerful cases of defiance must be handled within the bounds of due process.

The judges, however, rejected the argument that the orders of Justice Roselyn Aburili and Justice Odunga - directing Miguna’s production and access to counsel - were incapable of execution.

The appeal, therefore, succeeded only “on the narrow ground of procedure,” leaving the door open for fresh contempt proceedings should any party wish to file a properly constituted application.