Nairobi, Kenya — Kenya’s High Court has directed police authorities to produce missing Tanzanian activist Twaha Mwaipaya before the Milimani High Court at 11 a.m. on November 2, 2026, with any detention warrant and an explanation of why he should not be immediately released.
The directions, issued on October 30 by Justice Alexander Muasya Muteti, followed an urgent application by the human-rights organisation Vocal Africa. They create a formal, time-bound process for the state to account for Mwaipaya’s whereabouts after he was reportedly taken in the Kamulu area on October 25.
The court certified the application as urgent in Vocal Africa suing on behalf of the subject, Twaha Mwaipaya v State Law Office, Inspector General of Police and 13 others, case HCCRMISCAPPL/E262/2026.
Kenyan reports identify the authorities ordered to produce him as the Inspector General of Police, the Directorate of Criminal Investigations and the Officer Commanding Ruai Police Station.
The order directs the first three respondents to produce Mwaipaya “live or dead” before the court, with the original detention warrant. It requires them to “show cause why the subject should not be immediately released from custody,” according to the order.
Justice Muteti also summoned Inspector General Douglas Kanja Kirocho and DCI Director Amin Mohamed Ibrahim, either personally or through advocates, to explain the alleged arrest and detention. The respondents and interested parties must file any responses by 9 a.m. on Monday, November 2, before the 11 a.m. mention for further directions.
The order is a habeas corpus direction, a legal procedure through which a court requires an authority to produce a person said to be detained or explain the legal basis for custody.
Kenya’s Constitution makes the right to an order of habeas corpus non-derogable, protects people from arbitrary loss of liberty and violence, and says a person held in custody may seek the remedy under Articles 25, 29 and 51.
It does not amount to a finding that Kenyan police, or any other respondent, took or is holding Mwaipaya. Nor does it determine whether the October 25 reported abduction occurred; those questions remain unresolved as the case moves to the return date.
The application filed by Vocal Africa went further than the interim directions so far made. It sought preservation and production of CCTV, automatic number-plate recognition, toll, mobile-phone, border and vehicle-tracking records, as well as an independent investigation into the reported incident.
READ MORE: Mwaipaya Disappearance: East African Legal Bodies Press Kenya and Tanzania as Answers Remain Elusive
Friday’s court order does not grant those wider requests at this stage. Its immediate focus is production, service on the respondents, replies and the November 2 hearing.
Mwaipaya’s whereabouts and condition have not been publicly established. As of October 30, no credible public report said he had been found, released or produced before a court.
Amnesty International Kenya and the Defenders Coalition first said Mwaipaya was reportedly taken on October 25 while travelling by taxi in Kamulu. The alleged seizure, the identity of those involved and Mwaipaya’s location have not been independently established.
A Kenyan government spokesperson’s office said on October 27 that it had received no formal report and was following the matter, while the Tanzania High Commission in Nairobi said it had not received a report.
Reuters, meanwhile, reported it had seen a police report recording Mwaipaya as missing, an apparent difference that has not been publicly explained.
READ MORE: Attempted Abduction of Tanzania’s Activist in Kenya Foiled
A check of the public websites of Kenya’s DCI and Tanzania’s High Commission in Nairobi on October 30 found no case-specific statement after the court order, which does not establish that no inquiry is under way.
Mwaipaya is known for his work with CHADEMA’s youth wing, BAVICHA, and for calls for constitutional change and police accountability. Regional legal bodies have said that, if Tanzania had a criminal case against him, it should use formal extradition procedures and judicial safeguards rather than any unlawful removal.
