Six police officers accused of killing two Kianjakoma brothers will in the next two weeks know whether they will be released on bail or face trial while in remand.
Police officers Benson Mputhia, Consolata Kariuki, Nicholas Cheruyoit, Martin Wanyama, Lilian Chemuna and James Mwaniki were charged with the murder of the two Embu brothers.
Justice Daniel Ogembo on Thursday said he will deliver the bail ruling on November 4.
This is after he received the pre-bail report from the probation officers that he will use in determining if the six will be released on bail or not.
He was also furnished with six affidavits sworn by the six police officers stating their place of abode and where they would stay if released on bail.
In the pre-bail report for Benson Mputhia dated October 21, the family of the two brothers stated that they strongly feel that this is not the appropriate time to discuss bail as the matter is still very fresh to them.
The parents of the two slain brothers felt that the wound is still fresh and are yet to come to terms with the brutal deaths of their sons. The victims are much traumatised and they sought court protection to allow them time to grieve.
According to the report, the family feels exposed and vulnerable to an increased level of insecurity in their pursuit of justice for the two brothers and their only hope is in protection from the court.
The community in Kianjakoma has also given its views on the issue saying the situation in the area is still very tense and fragile.
They further asked the court not to grant the six bail at the moment as the situation is very hostile and volatile.
“They feared that the accused life would be at risk as the community has vowed to avenge the death of the two brothers by all means” the report reads.
In their report to the court, the probation officers have recommended that the accused persons be considered for bail at a later date after the security situation in Kianjakoma improves.
The prosecution also objected to the affidavits produced by the defence stating the places of abode of all the accused persons.
They argued that most of the affidavits had a digital signature that was not authentic.
The court heard that section 106 C of the evidence Act states an electronic signature must be proved that its from the person but in this case they have not.
On the substance of the affidavits, they argued that the accused did not provide any evidence to show that they stay in the areas that they have claimed in their affidavits.
They further urged the court not to consider the said affidavits in considering the bail terms.
However, defence lawyer Danstan Omari dismissed the objections by the prosecution saying digital signatures are the order of the day because of the current pandemic.
“Prison is a restricted area because of Covid-19 so it’s hard for us to access the prisoners. We can only access them virtually,” Omari said.
