Kenya’s Presidential Security Under Scrutiny After Shoe-Throwing Incident
A recent incident in which a shoe was thrown at President William Ruto during a public event has raised concerns about the effectiveness of Kenya’s presidential security protocols. The incident, which occurred in early May 2025, has been described as a wake-up call to tighten security measures around the president without compromising his public engagement with citizens.
According to security experts, protecting the president requires multiple layers of intelligence, physical security, and rapid response protocols. In Kenya, the presidential security detail includes the National Intelligence Service, the Kenya Defence Force, Presidential Escort Police officers, bomb disposal experts, and regular police officers. Their deployment depends on the nature of the presidential engagement.
Prior to any presidential visit, security teams conduct thorough reconnaissance of the destination, coordinating with local policing agencies, clearing airspace, and mapping secure transport routes. Presidential motorcade routes are pre-planned, and a dry run is made to identify potential security vulnerabilities. In high-risk areas, counter-security sniper teams are covertly deployed.
Despite these measures, the shoe-throwing incident highlighted several security lapses, including crowd screening and access control failures, delayed security response, and inadequate intelligence and threat assessment. The incident has sparked calls for a review of Kenya’s presidential security protocols, including increasing the standoff distance between the president and crowds, deploying more plainclothes officers, and conducting stricter screening of those in close proximity to the president.
Security Failures Exposed
The shoe-throwing incident exposed five major failures in presidential protection protocols:
- Crowd screening and access control failures: The alleged assailant was able to get too close to the president, suggesting inadequate distance between the crowds and the president.
- Delayed security response: The elite officers around the president failed to subdue the alleged attacker within seconds, indicating weak front-row eye sweeps and scans.
- Inadequate intelligence and threat assessment: Aggressive or agitated people next to the president should have drawn the attention of security officers.
- Lack of clear evacuation plan: The president continued speaking after the incident, instead of being immediately shielded and whisked away to a secure vehicle or helicopter.
- Insufficient use of undercover agents: Undercover agents are critical for flagging pre-attack signals, such as nervousness or repeated adjustments of positions.
Way Forward
To address these security lapses, Kenya’s presidential security detail may need to:
- Increase the standoff distance between the president and crowds
- Deploy more plainclothes officers to blend in and monitor crowds around the president
- Mandate stricter screening of those in close proximity to the president
- Conduct more frequent security risk drills for rapid neutralization of potential threats
While the exact details of presidential security in Kenya are confidential, the overarching structure aims to provide comprehensive protection to the president while maintaining public safety and order during official engagements. No security protocol is 100% foolproof, but a balance needs to be struck between overly aggressive crowd control and accessibility.
Expert Analysis
According to Douglas Lucas Kivoi, Principal Policy Analyst at the Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA), the shoe-throwing incident highlights the challenges of balancing presidential security with public safety, especially in densely populated urban areas. Kivoi notes that Kenya’s presidential security precautions follow standard VIP security protection protocols, but there is a need for continuous review and improvement to ensure the president’s safety and security.
