NO CROSS APPEAL

Naivasha court acquits police 'imposter' Joshua Waiganjo

This follows a successful appeal in the Court of Appeal

In Summary

•  Waiganjo was first arrested in 2013

• He was jailed in 2015 for five years but appealed the ruling

Joshua Waiganjo in a Naivasha court on June 13, 2017
Joshua Waiganjo in a Naivasha court on June 13, 2017
Image: George Murage

Joshua Karianjahi Waiganjo, who hit the headlines 11 years ago for impersonating a senior police officer, is now a free man.

A Naivasha court acquitted him of all the charges that included five counts of impersonation and being in possession of police uniforms.

Naivasha chief magistrate Nathan Lutta said the Court of Appeal had in 2017 made a ruling that Waiganjo be released.

The magistrate said the prosecution had made an application to have the case withdrawn but the accused raised fear he could be rearrested later on.

Lutta said the accused lodged an appeal in the case, through the High Court in Naivasha, but moved to the Court of Appeal in 2017 after he was dissatisfied with the outcome.

 “The Court of Appeal in its ruling directed that the accused person be set free and this court is bound by doctrine of stare decisis and the accused is acquitted under section 210 of the CPC,” he said.

In 2013, Waiganjo was arraigned in a Naivasha court accused of impersonating senior police officers, robbery with violence and being in possession of police uniforms.

The case collapsed as some witnesses failed to appear in court while some of the evidence went missing as the case moved from one court to another.

In 2015, he was acquitted of some of the charges but he was jailed for five years for impersonating a police officer, one year for dressing in police uniform and six months each for three charges of being in possession of government stores.

He appealed the ruling in the High Court, which ordered for a retrial of the case before moving to the Court of Appeal in 2017, which in turn dismissed the case in totality.

In the ruling, Justice P Nyamweya, F Ochieng and W Korir noted the order of a retrial by the High Court was not proper and lacked legal basis.

“There was no cross-appeal filed against these orders by the learned judge and we allow the appellants application and order that he be set at liberty forthwith,” the ruling read.

WATCH: The latest videos from the Star