• Judge says the law was not followed when recording the video.
• In the video, Ngugi explains how the murder was hatched and executed in 2016.
Image: FILE
The DPP suffered a major setback yesterday in the Willie Kimani murder case after the court barred them from playing a video confession allegedly linking the accused to the crime.
Justice Jessie Lessit allowed the application by former police informer Peter Ngugi to stop the state from using the video as evidence.
In the case, four police officers Fredrick Leliman, Stephen Cheburet, Sylvia Wanjiku, and Leonard Mwangi are charged alongside Ngugi with the murder of Kimani, his client Josephat Mwenda and taxi driver Joseph Muiruri was hatched and executed in 2016.
Through lawyer Kevin Michuki, Ngugi had asked the court not to allow the prosecution to play the video evidence arguing it would be prejudicial to him. In the video, which was to be played in court, he explains how the murder was hatched and executed in 2016.
Joseph Muindi, an officer who recorded the video footage, argued that they were taking evidence to identify the crime scene so they could know where the killings were done.
However, Lessit ruled that the police officer who recorded the video did not follow the rules of evidence taken out of court.
The judge said the law requires that when an investigating officer decides to have a suspect take him to the scene of a crime, he should take another qualified officer, not himself. In her view, an investigation officer can’t be involved during an exercise of alleged scene construction.
"The officer made a blunder to do that when he went ahead to the scenes and record. Being the one interviewing and taking the record was a blunder," she ruled.
The judge said the action should have been subjected to the rules of law. "In conclusion, I uphold that the evidence of crime scene construction recorded by Muindi will not be admitted,” she said.
Last week, Michuki blocked the playing of the video in court arguing it would be detrimental for his client. He said self-incriminating evidence should not be allowed because he was not cautioned before the video was taken.
He told the court that the scene reconstruction evidence, which the prosecution insisted to use, is inadmissible.
(Edited by F'Orieny)