• Echesa says that Articles 49 of the constitution of the Constitution which DCI relied on to detain him, contradicts articles 27, 28 and 29 on fundamental freedoms.
• Lawyer Samson Ng’etich, appearing for the DPP Noordin Haji, earlier sought more time to allow his client respond to the petition.
Former Sports CS Rashid Echesa has been asked to serve Attorney General Kihara Kariuki papers of a petition he has filed seeking clarification over his recent arrest in connection with the Matungu killings.
Justice Jesse Njagi directed Echesa’s lawyer, James Namatsi, to ensure the AG is served to be able to respond to the petition.
“The AG be served and mention on May 30 in this court,” said Njagi.
Lawyer Samson Ng’etich, appearing for the DPP Noordin Haji, earlier sought more time to allow his client to respond to the petition.
He said the AG needs to be served so he could respond on behalf of Director of Criminal Investigations George Kinoti and Inspector General of Police Hillary Mutyambai
Echesa filed the petition at the Kakamega High Court on Wednesday seeking prohibitory orders against what he is calling arbitrary police arrests and harassment.
Namatsi, in the petition, wants the court to declare that Achesa’s arrest and detention by DCI on May 17 was unconstitutional.
Echesa, Kakamega Senator Cleophas Malala and Mayoni MCA Libinus Oduori were arrested separately and locked up in separate police cells.
They were released on Sunday night after DPP directed that they are released unconditionally because the evidence provided could not sustain the charges against them.
Echesa argues that police were abusing Article 49(f) (ii).
It states that an arrested person has a right to be brought before the court as soon as reasonably possible, “if the 24 hours ends outside ordinary court hours or on a day that is not an ordinary court day, the end of the next court day.”
Echesa says the DCI abused that section of the law by arresting him on Friday so they could deliberately detain him in cells longer.
He wants the court to declare that section of the law contravenes fundamental rights of arrested persons and contradicts article 27, 28 and 29 of the Constitution 2010 and should be declared unconstitutional.