Court to Decide on Government Compensation for Garissa University Attack Victims

On Wednesday, a three-judge bench will convene to determine whether the Kenyan government should compensate victims of the tragic Garissa University attack that occurred on April 2, 2015. This pivotal case, which has captured national attention, involves survivors and their families seeking redress for alleged negligence and mishandling by the state.

The attack, orchestrated by the militant group Al-Shabaab, claimed the lives of 147 students and left many others injured. The plaintiffs, comprising over 33 former students, argue that the government failed in its duty to protect and rescue them, despite having prior intelligence on the imminent threat. They have accused the state of failing to act on this information, which they claim could have mitigated the loss of lives and injuries.

In their 2019 petition, the survivors and their families outlined several key allegations against the state. They contend that the government had actionable intelligence about the attack but did not act upon it. This claim suggests a severe lapse in security measures that could have prevented the tragedy. Furthermore, they argue that the delayed response in rescue operations exacerbated the injuries and contributed to the high death toll. According to the petitioners, the army’s intervention was not only delayed but also poorly coordinated, leading to additional casualties and confusion during the crisis.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for the psychological trauma and medical expenses incurred as a result of the attack. The emotional and physical toll on the survivors and the families of the deceased is immense, and they believe that financial compensation is a necessary step towards acknowledging and addressing their suffering.

In response, the state has denied the claims of negligence and failure to act. The government asserts that there was no specific or actionable intelligence that could have prompted a more effective response. This defense positions the government as having acted within the limits of the information and resources available at the time.

The case highlights broader issues of accountability and preparedness in the face of terrorism. It raises questions about the effectiveness of Kenya’s security apparatus and the mechanisms in place for dealing with such threats. The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future and might influence public perception of government responsibility in ensuring the safety of its citizens.